Closed source for GPLv3 with CC BY-NC-SA assets?

As the title says, I find "Closed source" a bit hash of a classification for a game with GPLv3+ code and CC BY-NC-SA assets. As much as I dislike the NC clause, and would indeed consider the assets nonfree to some extent (at least not DFSG-free), I think have GPLv3+ code and "partly free" assets should be enough to tag is as open source.

All in all, we really need an "Open source with nonfree assets" category for such cases...

Forums: 

For example C-Dogs SDL linked above is tagged as Open source even though its assets are derived from Freeware assets (with the authorization of the original author AFAIK, but no license).

Same story for Tales of Maj'Eyal which uses nonfree Shockbolt sprites, but is also tagged as Open source. So I believe Witch Blast should get the same honor :)

>All in all, we really need an "Open source with nonfree assets" category for such cases...

why? firstly we post games here, engines aren't games so an open engine without the game data is almost useless.

you can also state in the description that the engine is open source. and if the engine is used more widely you can add them to the engines section.

>C-Dogs SDL.. ...Tales of Maj'Eyal...

thanx i fixed them.

It is not harsh, this is just how “open source” is defined.
Read the definition of “open source”: https://opensource.org/osd
CC-Whatever-NC is in clear violation of condition 1 “Free Distribution”, sorry.

LGDB should not redefine the meaning of “open source”.