not yet

Hello, rasises hand and admitts that i am the one that started this. I was asked about this licence by a member. The question was do u really know what this licence means and to make a long story short i was told that this license means that:

A person who downloads a copy of the freebie can use the item as he or she wants to. Since the person who downloaded clicked that he/she agreed to the licence the person uploading the freebie can not deny the downloader to do what ever he wants including redistributing and selling the freebie as long as credit is given and that the downloader provides the original freebie or a link to it.

I don't want ppl to be able to sell my freebies and make money off them by fooling others when they could have gotten it for free. I also don't want ppl to be able to redistribute the freebie or parts of it. If they want to share it, they can give others the link to pf or they can ask me.

And also it is not my intention to start something bad here, just keep freebie providers here from being used and keep new Poser users from being ripped off.

I 100% agree Thilda. Maybe we need to rewrite the agreement in a more down to earth manner so that their won't be loop holes with the free stuff. But can we write an agreement to downloading and make this legal?

Ok people, I found 6 new licences, I wrote about them in the first message, the difference between the first 3 and the rest is the commercial/no commercial use. Please have a look at those licences. They are NEW, they are not the old one that I've deleted.

I have looked at the licenses at the links provided.

I very much like the idea of having "Human readable" versions, in addition to the standard "Lawyerspeak".

I agree that a license that does not allow distribution/ re-distribution would probably be most useful. (I assume this from reading & hearing comments from "free content creators".)

I agree with Whazizname about that but have one question. sense the people that already have the download free stuff that has agreed to the old agreement. Does this make them not liable to the new agreement? ( To me this is the scariest part of this. The fact that legally they can do what they want because they agreed with the old agreement and to us and them it is binding.) Any comments or solutions on things like this?

I have one idea though. At the bottom of the agreement we add " Agreement contract subject to change without notice".

I think that a license without distribution/re-distribution is a copyright . I'm not expert about the matter and I've to read about it.

As far as I know (but it's probably not exactly true) one has to pay for the copyrights (I don't know who or what), I mean, if you don't want that your product may be distributed or redistributed you have to protect it with a copyright and this copyright has to be bought, but, I repeat, probably I'm wrong.

This Creative Commons association basically protects the freebies from alteration, attribution, commercial use but not fro distribution/redistribution. However, when the freebie is distributed or redistributed one must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. In this way the author (we) can add in the readme the condition for redistribution (for example I can write that one can redistribute the work if you donate 10000$ to the Posette and Dork Preservation foundation (posetteforever) so that no one will do it ).

Reading your messages Now I'm thinking of a solution: Maybe we can leave things like they are now: the author can choose one of the 6 licenses or none, if he or she choose none the rights of the work is written in the readme on the care of the author. The authors at Posetteforever can use the Creative Commons license also an example to add in their readme because (probably) it's the right form to protect their work.

As I said, the right NOT to distribute the work could be effectively made by protecting the work with a copyright, so even if you write in the readme not to distribute it, this rule could not be effective if the work is not protected by a copyright. I'm thinking about music, as far as I know in order not to be copied a song have to be protected by a paid copyright. I could be wrong by I'll read some more documents about it on the net today.

With "distribute" I mean share the work without any alteration or the alteration specified by the author/licensor (as is) and with attribution

This is an interesting document:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

And it looks like I was wrong about copyrights

u don't have to pay for copyrights, as soon as u create something what ever u create u own the copyright to it.

TdaC wrote: [View Post]

u don't have to pay for copyrights, as soon as u create something what ever u create u own the copyright to it.

This is true; but to have maximum legal recourse, it is best to have a registered (paid) copyright, and proof of prior versions. (I'm unsure if this is true for all countries; but it is in the US.)