My Meditation Chair Being Sold

I got tired of reading about this subject, so I will act on it instead.

I will setup a distribution network using vendors, for the sole aim of distributing freebies.

All "creators" interested in giving freebies can either give me the free item with full perms.

I will put the item in the vendor server, with the item's perms set to No mod, No copy, No transfer once it is sold. So whoever "buys" the item for L$0 can't turn around and resell it for any amount.

If the creator wishes to set the perms to allow modify, then just specify it to me clearly in the description of the item.

If a creator want to host a vendor on his property, just join the group I will create just for this purpose.

I will retain control of the server because tests revealed that the vendor system I have cannot be shared with a group. A max of 2 people can be allowed control of the server.

This seem like a simple solution to me. If you have constructive suggestions or remarks, please post them or IM me inworld.

Actually, LL hasn't declared selling freebies illegal that I know of. From the reading I did, and I posted some of the TOS in earlier posts. Can you post the rules regarding the resale of freebies. I may have missed it. Thanks

Erm. If it's actually open source you are allowed to resell it. GNU licenses allow commercial use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

"Open-source software has freely available source code, which lets anybody create a new version of the software. Such access to the source code allows anybody to build a package of the software and sell it."

In fact the restrictions on the in-world "GNU" store are not GNU style free at all. The real GNU could/should sue them. The name certainly isn't helpful.

The Free Software Foundation has an essay - Selling Free Software.

" Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy."

Kevn, question for you... Given that you now know how most makers of free items feel about it being sold, why not make your own stuff to sell instead of selling the work of others that they intended to be freely distributed? Do you just not give a damn how they feel? Is your sense of entitlement stronger than your sense of empathy?

Wish I could. I read it somewhere but don't remember where. What I have however, is witnessed more than once a Linden coming to a yard sale selling freebie items and shutting those items down. They don't police the selling themselves, but like with any type of "illegal" activity, they respond when such is reported.

Often at yard sales, the person holding the sale is only part of a group and they don't know the items are freebies. So I usually contact the person conducting the sale rather than reporting such. I've never had a sale conductor refuse to self-police.

To add a little extra detail as to how GNU Licences (the most common of which are the GPL and the LGPL) relates to copyrights, one of the core restrictions on GNU Licenses is not in how the source is used, but more specifically in how it is attributed. Namely, the original creator(s) of the code retains the copyright, and anyone using the code must make sure to give 'credit where credit is due'.

Remember it's 'free as in freedom', not 'free as in beer'.


- Newfie

First of all, a few people on a forum are not "most makers of free items". There may be one or two here complaining, and I seriously doubt I sell their items, If they tell me not to offer one of their items, I delete it from my inventory completely and will not offer it to the public. I do this out of a sense of "let's get along", not because I think it's their right to tell me what to do with the item.

When I sell a freebie it's usually included in a box full of other freebies. I sell the box for $1L, not the items within the box. I placed a large sign stating I'm not selling the item, just the efforts to gather, the items are avaliable free elsewhere if they prefer to search for it or contact the creator. That is my moral code. That said, I refuse to condemn others for selling them for any marketable price.

I really have no problem with any of that as long as you pay creators the courtesy of asking them first before you sell their freebies. I'd personally say no because I use my free clothes as a gift for windowshoppers in my stores who can't afford to buy anything so they won't walk away empty handed. They're also no copy to prevent people from trying to make a buck off my altruism.

The reason I set out these freebies is I feel it's a valuable service. I only set out things I have used personally and find worthy to be in my inventory. Many of these items are hard to find, if they are avaliable at all. These are things I gathered over many months of SL exploration. Many things I bought I wouldn't even resell at a yardsale, if I found the item worthess. My idea was to offer people a preselected group of freebies that have I have personally tested. The $1L is more a way to track the popularity of the items. Although I must say, the L add up over a month and almost cover 10 percent of my tier.

The solution is to have Linden Labs increase the options.

If you're only charging $1 that's cool. Selling collection of freebies for $1 is what YadNi does at the Junkyard and AFAIK no one has a problem with that, and if you remove stuff if people ask then I'd say you're golden.

Well, I don't usually state my opinions in the forums but I would like to discuss the permissions as they relate to textures as it seems they have not been addressed in this thread.

Textures do not have the same options for permissions as do most items sold in SL due to the fact that if they are no copy and or no transfer they are pretty much useless to anyone buying them. Setting permissions to copy/no transfer is doable but not practical. So they are left with no option except to set permissions so that a person creating that free object or that one of a kind item can resell or give it away.

When you have a no copy object that you sell or give away you no longer retain a copy of that object. This is not the case for textures. I don't think one would have much business if textures were set to no copy no transfer. Does this give you the right to turn around and resell or give them away while still retaining a copy when the specific intent of use is stated by the creator?

The permissions for textures arent set with the "general interpretation of permissions" in mind. They are set because there really isnt another option.

Drift

The example of textures is a good one, Drift. Recently I bought a ton of your textures, because they came with full perms. And I've encouraged other people to get them from your store in Clyde. And inevitably one silly girl thought I should simply give them to her for free, because the perms seemed to allow that. What she received from me was the notecard that comes with the textures to explain your policy on the perms.

I'd bet money that this is what most committed SL residents would do.

Much of this thread discusses rules in SL and laws outside SL. There's little discussion of social norms, however. Reading Order without Law (discussed elsewhere) I've become interested in the examples of communities where neighborliness trumps law. Neighbors may ignore their legal entitlements, and adhere to social norms that work. Hopefully we're collectively using forum discussions to shape and promote our own vision of what the social norms in our community should be.

It seems useful to have some kind of defence against the bad apples who are motivated by self interest at the expense of content creators and new players. We can't expect LL to step in every time we encounter a case of this behavior though. It would be more useful to improve the permissions system. LL involvement is necessary when malefactors try to circumvent it, of course. Two thumbs up for their recent prompt attention to stopping that exploit used against script creators.

I fear any attempt to install "social norms" that restrict my freedom. Some social norms will restrict people's behaviour in way that stops their business scaling. If people wish to live in a small village they can do so but leave me out of it.

I am getting very sick of people claiming to do this for the poor, flea-bitten, down-trodden newbie. It's for some (not all) content creators. It's not for charity, for motherhood and apple pie or all-round goodness.

As a content creator I prefer freedom as in software. I want much better licensing. Creative Commons licensing would have solved a lot of these problems as people could use non-commercial flags.

Textures in particular need a much better licensing solution. It should be possible to set perms different on "bare" textures differently from "applied" ones.

I'm getting very sick of people telling me why I did things... I actually DID start putting out things because the older example works weren't viable under the (then) new system of land/prims being tied together... Some as examples of how you could manipulate prims, others as examples of scripting... At the time of founding the GnuWave Dollar store, I didn't have anything 'commercial' on the market at all... I didn't have to.

So it very much was for new players... others motivations may vary..

The lessons I learnt from the creation of that place were invaluable - especially considering we did it at the advent of when GOM/IGE were introduced..

Ultimately it lead me to conclude that providing quality free content is certainly not worth the aggrivation you will experience later.. That the permissions system certainly needs a lot of work before any semblance of creative commons work can exist comfortably in SL.

Siggy.

You know, as a forgeiner, I cant actually read the english most of you are using on this post. This thread is starting to look like the stuff lawyers write that no one can actually read except for other lawyers.

But this points out something that I think is pretty intresting:

Alot of people on this thread try to nit-pick, dig so much into rules and what is "allowed" and "not allowed" that many just happen to ignore the basic sensation of it all:

1)You create an item.

2)You distribute it for free.

3)Someone uses the digital nature of the content to label that item as his own creation, without actually modifying anything or innovating. Puts up a price tag and makes a profit off your work.

Forget labels, names, ideas, "theft", "borrowing", "TOS", "Agreement", etc'.

How do you -feel- inside when you see this happen?

I personaly hope that the response isnt going to be "I shall be proud of getting such a great recognition in the community!".

Try not to hang or nit-pick on afew words or terms that i've made in this post. Just tell me how you'd feel about this situation.

Without all of the legal crap, it just comes down to COMMON COURTESY! Being a part of a community.

If someone gave me something, there is no way in Hell I would ever try to copy and sell it withour their permission.

BTW, Hi CS : )

Lot of discussion here, but either no one has brought it up or I missed it:

If you want more control over distribution slap a Copyright license on it. Like, say, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. Tell your recipients, add a notecard and a popup script.

The distribution controls provided by SL are a DRM system that grant the recipient an implied license to do whatever they will allow. If you want something different, say so. Then you can slap LL with a DMCA takedown notice when someone charges for your free chair (I'm kidding folks, though they would probably be willing to help).

<edit>Good to confirm I have remained blind (I swear, I read that page). Realistically, Copyright infringement is illegal. Period. State your license clearly, and then talk to the Lindens and a lawyer if you want to get violent about infringement. Does anyone honestly think RL creations under Libre and Open licenses do not get filched by this same class of people? But we still have thriving communities without _any_ DRM.</edit>

Yup. Covered that a little while back. Newfie mentioned it, Crystalshard said why it didnt work.

At the end of the day, all the while we have the kind of people that dont understand the concept of a moral and ethical code over and above what is written down in law and are willing to ride roughshod over the rights and wishes of the creator "because there isn't a rule that says I can't" then we're fucked. So Siggy, and therefore Newfie is right: I don't see why anyone at all would bother to create content for this sorry assed bunch of morally corrupt assholes. Sorry to the rest, but you know who the apologists, defenders and offenders are if you want to take it up with them.

Don't resell freebies, they are meant to be free for everyone..

If your thinking about reselling freebies ask yourself this question first:

"If I make an item and it sells in SL for 1,000 lindens and I am selling it with full mod perms so they can give the item away as a gift. How would I feel if I was in a mall and saw it being sold for 1 linden $?

I agree with Khamon and a few others if your going to give away items make sure you do not click the Give Away/Resell box. (which i realy wish they would seperate but thats just me lol)



Cat

In my world, when I gift something, it's no longer in my hands. If it's a gift to the community then let it go. Don't follow your "gift" around demanding how it be used. Newbies come here looking for a way to make money. Finding something to sell is at least as important as playing with the object you "gifted" to the community. Most who sell freebies are newbies looking for some fast spending money.

If it's really a gift, let it go. If you don't intend it to be a gift then don't give it away. Sell it with the no copy box marked.

This is my humble opinion

I swear you must be trolling. Really.

And if I give you a gift and say 'please don't resell that, ever. it's not yours to profit from" you'll still say "fuck you. buyers rights!" and do it anyway. I assume this because you've not taken any notice at all of people's opinions or wishes in this thread, and discounted all of their arguments because they conflict with your personal lack of morals.

People like you make me sick, and are the precise reason people stop providing content to the community. I hope one day the community 'thank' you for your contribution to Second Life.

Does my opinion force you to get personal? Am I entitled to an opinion, or are you in charge of who is afforded the right to an opinion?

You know.. I feel like dragging ESR or some other open-source prominent figure over here to put some sense in your head... question is, would they even bother with the likes of you.

I've only just popped by for a second, crystal, so forgive me if I'm out of context. But you seem knowledgeable on this stuff. I'd really like your reaction to the link below, which seems to give a different point of view, which I find needs some thinking about.

Here it is:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html