Is there any other way to mark Marketplace content other then writing a bad review?

[Ferd Frederix]

I have noticed several people are reselling on the Marketplace GNU-licensed scripts for $950 , $1,650, $1,000, and $2,999.  This is not allowed under a GNU license.

The GNU license by the original author, Xundra Snowpaw,  requires that these be free and full mod, unless sold as part of a larger project, such as in a pet, and these scripts appear to not be doing that. One is marked no transfer.   One of them mentions the original Google code link which contains the license info and the original authors name, and some of the text is an obvious scrape and paste from a website article I wrote about the scripts.

See https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Breedable-Animal-Pets-Script-The-Best-Script/2714882

The only flag option that makes sense is "Spam or Disallowed Listing Practise", and the subcategory is "Inflated Listing Price", which should be zero. Yet there is no way to comment on this when an item is flagged as to why it is inflated.

A DMCA cannot be filed except by the original copyright holder.  So my question is, is there any way to flag these inappropriate listings other than buy it and then write a review?  I hate to give these people money, but it may be the only way to warn others that these are free and open source scripts.

 

 

 

 

[Pamela Galli]

You would have to notify the original creator, who would have to file a DMCA I suppose. Not sure about licensing infringement, tho, really, which is different than IP infringement.

[Chelsea Malibu]

No and for many good reasons which I wont go into here again however, you should contact Xundra Snowpaw and  let them know.

I agree with what you are trying to do though and just want to hang people who sell or give away others freebies.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Most open source licensing is horribly mangled in SL.

Depending on the license (which mostly covers the way the product is distributed, not used), it may not be right for the original author to distrubute under those terms either. Meaning that it's possible that if the original copyright holder wants the product to be distributed under "different" terms than the GNU license, they need to dual license it. The GNU license in question is probably stating that "this is the way you, and anyone else who uses it, must distribute it".

The GNU license doesn't include whether someone sells it or not. It's generally fine to sell a GNU licensed product, the license doesn't specifiy whether it's sold, only that it's distributed under certain conditions. (There are exceptions)

As long as the seller is distributing the product under those conditions, then they're probably allowed to sell it.

For instance, it must contain the original license, included materials may have to also be under the same license, and there must exist pointers to where the original code is archived so that anyone can obtain it "freely".

Technically, they may have to provide that link in the Marketplace ad itself.

But again, most likely the original author isn't quite using the license properly either. That's why it's best to have legal advice in these matters.

It would almost be safer to come up with your own agreement in some cases than to rely on GNU and open source licensing, but again, a lawyer is the only sure bet.

[Ferd Frederix]

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

I wonder then if you can charge ANY fee....

[Dartagan Shepherd]

There is "that", heheh. What constitutes "reasonable".

Many aspects of various open source licenses have not been thoroughly tested in a courtroom, as yet either.

Here's a can-of-worms type of question ...

If all distribution and licensing requirements are indeed met on both ends, and the distribution/duplication fee is actually reasonable, is it legal for SL to charge a 5% commission on top of that?

Probably safer to go with a Creative Commons license, which does specifiy sales and intent a bit more, but isn't quite the right tool for the job either, being better suited to Media than code.

Safest of all (not legal advice) is probably to word an agreement as simply and clearly as humanly possible, and to keep it short. At least you could probably fall back on intent to some extent, rather than get shot in the foot with legalese on a more sophisticated agreement, at least for SL stuff.