[Rexxar]

It seems the game use some assets from "liberated pixel cup" (https://lpc.opengameart.org/) which are in GPLv3 / CC BY-SA 3.0. Does any one know how viral are this licenses with other assets and the game itself ? I would have avoided to use them for a commercial game personally but I'm maybe mistaken.

[throwaway290]

OGA has a FAQ that covers licensing, although it is not legal advice: https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-proprietary

OP might be OK if they credit artists and publish all modifications made to the art.

Although if it was me I would be uncomfortable publishing a game using someone else's assets commercially anywhere unless I am backed by some BigCo with a legal team, licensing is too fraught.

[ZiiS]

GPLv3 is a very strange license to apply to artwork. It is specific to software. However I dont belive the is any intent for it to cover the game using the assets.

[washbrain]

Sure. But CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a very standard license to apply to art, and has similar expectations for sharing your game with CC-BY-SA.

[ZiiS]

The standard argument is: dose opening a CC-BY-SA document in a word processor effect the word processor's license? Even if you distributed the documents as a template inside the word processor's installer I don't think you could claim the word processor was a derivative work. The intent of the SA license is that if you also improve the the template you have to share the improvements.

Having said that at least the Switch version will contain technological measures (from Nintendo) to prevent the sharing and adaption of the games assets. So even if the license is not at all viral it may not grant them permission to include the covered artwork.

[xyzzy_plugh]

I don't know that it does have similar expectations for licensing your game under the same terms. This is ultimately for courts to decide. It's incredibly ambiguous if a game is a derivative work or a collection; The latter avoids virality.