Is this guy selling freebies on SLX?

Ok, there are some items that are so-called "freebies", but really cost anywhere from $1L-20L.
In that case, the owner should be able to resell them at the same price, or higher, or lower. If someone doesn't do their homework, or money is no object, that's their business. Look at the quality of those items, a lot of times they are something a beginner could make...

Just as bad as selling freebies is people taking open source scripts made by you and then distributing them for free because they are open source. They do it because they want to punish those who release scripts that are open for modifications and education, and prevent the creator from making L$.

Wait...im confused now....i always thought:

Open source = Free

classic copyright = (closed source) only for use in one instance the seller allows, subject to fair use provisions.

open source = (GNU, limited BSD) free to use as long as whatever you make with it is also free to use. This is *NOT* free as in beer, its more like free as in your right to speech, you can use it but don't abuse it.

creative commons = (CC's many variants) free to use as long as you adhere to whatever limit the creator puts on it, (aka putting his name somewhere, not reselling it, etc)

public domain = free as in beer. This is the true 'free' code. You can do whatever the hell you want with it, resell it for 100x the price, claim you invented it, print it on toilet paper, whatever. US government funded projects (that are not directly defense related) like the internet's basic protocols, often end up here. Also when someone truly *truly* wishes their code to be free, they may also enter it into the public domain. This is also where things go when their (130+ year) copyright time expires, so barring further intervention, microsoft windows xp will be here in the year 2132.


The mistake people make when WRITING code, open permissions, is that they forget to EXPLICITLY cite that the code is covered by the GPL or CC license... if they fail to do this, it defaults to public domain, as they have *FAILED* to enforce their copyright, and therefore defacto loose it.

which is a long winded way of saying if you want yer stuff to have some legal defense/recourse from being resold (tho good luck enforcing it) *CITE* a protected license in the code itself. If you fail to do so, whether you mean to or not, you *ARE* entering your code into the public domain

Actually, if you forget to say what license the thing is, it defaults to regular copyright. Which means nobody is allowed to copy it (with a few "fair use" exceptions). The mere fact that one can copy something does not necessarily mean one is allowed to copy it.

No i don't think thats the case, because by distributing it in an *open* format, without copyright info, i think you meet the terms of 'failing to defend' your own 'innate' copyright and therefore it runs the risk of being defacto in the public domain. The laws governing that are abit murky though...

Essentially its like, REM recorded a new single, and then mailed a copy of it, to every single person in america, with no copyright info, no trademarks, no nothing, just a blank cd and a sharpie 'our new song' on the front... and then later on tried to sue every recipient because they were 'not authorized' to listen to it, i don think that 'works' i.e. by distributing it in an unprotected format, with no copyright notice, to a wide number of people, they give up on their defacto copyright (which is why things like that NEVER EVER happen, mind you)

Discussions are alot smoother when everyone is civil and just a friendly reminder the forums are PG.

On the topic of copyright, even if you don't state it is copyrighted it is. Unless you specificly put it into the public domain, it is copyright. Though with the current permissions system of SL you could argue that if a more restrictive liscense was not put in place and the SL permissions did not enforce a restrict; then there is no grounds for enforcement of that restriction.

So if you publish a peice of code with full perms with no liscense it might as well be public domain.

On the plus side, I didnt know there was an uncensored SLX

eltee, if someone has material posted on SLX that violates your copyright, then by all means submit a DMCA notification. This was suggested to you when you contacted us via email as well. Most don't realize just how difficult it is to make a decision with what is effectively zero evidence even if it appears to be completely obvious, and the DMCA was created specifically for that reason.

Explicit instructions on how to submit a DMCA notification can be found in Section 12 of the SL Exchange Terms of Service:
http://www.slexchange.com/tos.php

We don't like fraudsters any more than the next person. We receive DMCA notifications on a somewhat regular basis and have refined the process to be as painless as possible. If you are unwilling to follow that process (which is almost identical to Second Life by the way), then I don't believe you have grounds for your accusations.

This is why any freebies that i make are no transfer, scripts are no modify. Except for my vendor kit. I recently cought one being sold too even though i have it under GNU license... I won't release the name of who did it but if you IM/PM me il tell ya.

Unrelated to that, Sure this shop takes the cake on freebie selling...
http://uncensored.slexchange.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&MerchantID=11389

Perhaps it was setup on purpose to troll the content creators? Possibly get them worked up, since they can't do anything to stop this? :/ I think the person running that shop is lower then the primordial goo that created us all.

sorry to dig up this old retread but you are missing the point, its not a copyright allegation i am making. Its a *FRAUD* allegation. They are advertising they are selling a full avatar (one of ours) when in fact they are *NOT* and in fact are selling the 'folder' the avatar came with, and the 2-3 things that are ok to transfer, 2 notecards, and a color swatch texture..

I don't have a copyright issue with the fact those items are being sold, its specifically a FRAUD issue in that they are claiming to sell thing X when in fact they are not actually SELLING thing x, its like someone on ebay claming to sell 'brand new ps2' and instead only shipping an empty box.

It is not 'impossible to verify', its completely *trivial* to verify, look at what they are actually listing, vs what they are actually claiming to sell, case closed, hands down.