Question re: use of free scripts

What are the legal/ethical issues concerning using free scripts? What I mean is, if I use a free script, modify it to suit my needs, is there a problem using it in a build and selling the whole thing? I would not sell the unchanged script or even just the modified script. Does the answer change if the script is not even modified, but used as is, but with the addition of either original construction or other original scripts?

Thanks,
Baron

I think it depends a lot on what the script is. Are there any notes in the script about it's fair use?

In most cases, I think it's perfectly fine to use freebie code in your builds. But it depends on lots of things. Perhaps if you let us know which script you are talking about, you could get a better answer.

IMO, I would release the script for free just as the original was released. (I take a GPL-like stance by default) Using it within your product would be fine, as long as users of the product have free access to the sourcecode that was built off the free sourcecode.
==Chris

I think it depends a lot on what script we are talking about and how much it is modified. For instance... this was given to me as a freebie script:

default
{
  
     touch_start(integer total_number)
    {
        integer number = llGetInventoryNumber(INVENTORY_TEXTURE);
        float rand = llFrand(number);
        integer choice = (integer)rand;
        string name = llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_TEXTURE, choice);
        if (name != "")
            llSetTexture(name, ALL_SIDES);
    }
}

That's the whole script. If I modified this and sold it inside another product, I'm not going to worry about keeping the script open. However, I have used a complex open script in a couple of my products with small modifications and left the source open, as the creator requested in the comments. It really depends on the script.

I agree it depends on the script, but if it's a simple script anyway, why would you close it back up again?

IMO, the only reason to keep a script closed is cause it uses some proprietary thing that you thought up yourself and want to sell for money instead of being generous. If this proprietary thing was made by "standing on other peoples shoulders," then it's pretty low to leave it closed.

The only really justifiable closed scripts are those that are completely new and written from scratch by a scripting genius. Those are few and far between.

Um no. Just no. The moment you release your scripts as modifiable, they WILL be used without you getting any compensation whatsoever for your contributions, which I think is unfair. You SHOULD be compensated for your work. The fact that some people forego that compensation is a moot point - it doesn't make everyone else 'less generous'. The sad fact is that, as much as you would like to generalize and imply that everyone who has ever used a freebie snippet in their code is low to keep the script closed so that they can receieve adequate compensation for the contribution (which is possibly quite substantial), it is just as easy to generalize the vast majority of the people in SL as not buying something when they can have it for free (i.e. just copy pasting the code, or giving it freely to other people) and forego compensation. Do you think that's right?

Don't get me wrong, I've often given my source code to some of my friends to tinker around with. I consider that my privilege. Some of my scripts contain ideas and concepts that have indeed come from some of the freebie snippets, such as everyone's favorite one-line llTargetOmega or llSetTextureAnim. But, quiet frankly, I don't see the need to have the entire world see my scripts. They don't need them as a 'learning tool', and I'm not obligated to have them avialable as such. I don't KNOW those people that would be using my script in that way.

When I see that all the clothing designers are giving away all of their templates for free (you know, all the sources that they used for their clothing), and all building designers giving away their builds as modify/copy/transfer, maybe I'll assume it's time to rethink this strategy. But this isn't a communism, and I kind of resent it being implied that I'm not 'generous' just because I want fair compensation for the things I make - scripts. Anyone who has ever dealt with me in-world would never say I'm not generous.

I note, just as a point of curiosity, that you don't write scripts. You sell clothing and furniture. So possibly you're not thinking with your wallet here...

"The only really justifiable closed clothing and furniture are those that are completely new and designed and drawn from scratch by an artistic genius. Those are few and far between."

How does that strike you? As a bit heavy-handed? As trivializing everything you do as a minor bit of effort anyone could duplicate? As totally annihilating your ability to earn in SL? Yeah, that's how it struck me, too.

Scripting is, in general, highly undervalued. Look at the people whining about the "ripoff" price of Rez-Foo, or the regular stream of stores where a scripter is asked to write scripts to duplicate an existing object... for less than the cost of buying one of the existing items.

No-one screams that Chip Midnight doesn't release the photoshop files with all the layers and raw data to make his skins, but try charging for a script without releasing the source and people complain about it.

Luckily I script for fun; I just tell peolel with interesting request I'll add them to my To-Do list and maybe make them one-day. (My to-do list is a bunch of prims that fly about randomly about my yard, spinning and dodging to represent how I will never keep up with it all)

I script for fun as well and would prefer to release everything that I do mod copy, which I will certainly do as soon as

(a) the charge structure of SL is not based on the idea that people will be selling things, and

(b) I could be sure that nobody else would rip off my entire object which took me a lot of time and effort to build/script and resell it for large sums. I'm not here to give money to idle content thieves.

of course there is also

(c) I win the lottery

which is unlikely as I never play it.

At the moment I have several L$1 mod copy items but I will not be releasing certain of my more detailed ones for that price, or as mod copy, which is something of a shame.

Okay. I have a particular example in mind. Maybe that would help.

I made a candle that burns down. Aside from examples from the wiki, I used the particle script made by Ama Omega and modified by Oz Spade, found in a turoiral on sluniverse.com. Within that script, I added a couple of extra snippets to make it work with the rest of my build. I would gladly share that information (what I got and where) with everyone, but am not ready to share the proprietary portions of code.

I know from Real Life an analogy, but I do not know if this applies. Recipes are intellectual property, but as I understand it, if one ingredient is "substantively" changed, the "new" recipe is no longer under the same constraint. Does this make sense, or even apply to the situation?

I could, of course, just go ahead and do what I want to do, but I really want to be honest and do what is right. So I ask for guidance from someone who KNOWS more about this.

Thanks,
Baron

I'm not a legal expert - but my understanding is that you've found a lovely grey area!

I think it depends on just how substantive the changes are to be honest, and it's part of the reason IRL there are copyright and trademark lawyers. They'd also have to read the script you've modified to see if there are specific license agreements.

I would have to say that "I added a couple of extra snippets to make it work with the rest of my build" doesn't sound like a substantive change to me - snippets tend to be small after all.

Putting the original script in (in a notecard or similar), and saying you've modified it for artistic purposes to create the desired effect and that is propietary (depending on the license) might be a nice way around the problem. People who want to make a particle system get to play with it, but they don't get the tweaking and artistry that you've added to the system - it might not be quite the letter of the law if there's a license in the script, but I'd suggest it's not an unreasonable compromise and does let people see and use the script that was released and use it themselves.

Of course writing your particle system from scratch never hurts, except your brain, and avoids these issues...

Particle scripts look complicated at first, but they are pretty simple usually, just a list of variables and some mechanism to turn the particles on and off.

You have a few choices:

1. Rewrite the particle portion of the script to make it your own.
   
2. Separate out the particle effect into a separate script, have the main script turn it on and off via link messages. Have the particle script open and your script closed.
   
3. Send an IM to the creator(s) and ask them for advice.

Unless there is something really novel about their approach to particles I can't see a problem. Plus the fact that its been published as a tutorial. It's meant for people learn from and reuse the code as they see fit, IMO, unless otherwise stated.

At the point where it is possible to somehow claim copyright over a particular configuration of particles (minus the *original* artwork used for the particles) is where I totally give up on our copyright system.

Here's an easier examination of the issue - Do what you think is FAIR and RIGHT, and give credit where credit is due. If you've done those things, and some actually does come and sue you for something, it doesn't matter - they would have done so anyways.

I would suggest that particle scripting is one of the places where lsl is at its most artistic. Sure the good scripters are creative and sophisticated and have artistry but in the commonly accepted sense particles are, or can be art.

If I write code for anything else I may have to debug it, I certainly make some howling logical errors from time to time, but once the code is working to achieve its desired effect I rarely need to tinker unless I'm adding something new.

With particles that's not the case. I'm starting to get better so I can put some values into the script and have the effect usually look about right. I'm also getting better at judging which parameters to tweak to get the desired output. But it really is artistically tweaking the numbers to get it looking just so in a way that it isn't for any other thing I script (it might be the same for vehicle scripting I suspect).

Not sharing that precise configuration (out of the millions or billions) as your creation still strikes me as reasonable. Just because they look like numbers doesn't mean their impact isn't art to me. But that's just my opinion.

Oh, and if you call textures by key in your script to save you having to put the texture in every time, releasing your script also releases full access to your texture - if it's yours that's art by anyone's standards I suspect?

Lets say I use a freebie script and build from it.
The parts I add into the script may or may not be complex enough to be called "mine"
But the part that I used is free to anyone. So that part I feel must be given out if people want their inventory spamed with all those free scripts.

What I would do is keep the script that a product uses locked. And add another package with all the freebie scripts you used to work from. Or just give it out to those who ask for it if it gets in the way of your product or package. Too much stuff in a box is confusing.

But that keeps your code safe and the open source code still gets passed around just as it's creator intended.

Anyone with a small amount of scripting skills can make up something like this below:

state_entry()
    {
        llAllowInventoryDrop(TRUE); 
        llSetText("FREE Scripts!!", <1,1,1>, 1.5);
       
    }

And anyone saying it's "their code" is just trying to start crap.

So the border line, I would say, is when this code is complex enough to become "your idea" and not a commonly used setup. Just because you use common scripts does not mean you can't sell other parts of your product. Such as the time it took you to put it all together in the way you did.

This reminds me of the guy who claimed a blank white canvas as "his artwork"
If he painted it with any other color would it be his art? Heh It's just stupid.
How many colors does it take?

That's one reason I so rarely buy clothes and skins, actually. It seems like such a high price for a pointer to a bitmap that I can't even edit.