Caveat Emptor

If you look on eBay at any time you may see people selling custom instructions or custom LEGO sets. While it’s generally not for me I can understand that some people might want to make some money out of their hobby and this is one way to do so.

What you may not realise is that some of these people sell custom instructions or sets of models that are not theirs to sell. I’ve discovered two cases of people selling my work and am aware of others becoming victims of the same unscupulous actions. This is really bad behaviour. Everytime someone does this it makes people less inclined to give their instructions away for free knowing that someone else may profit from their generosity.

This morning Tim David alerted me to this sales announcement (do not buy) from eBay store DJs-Treasure-Box (Paypal account [email protected]) who is selling instructions to my Koef (pictured above) and my Cuban Alco as well as James Mathis’ center beam wagon and I’m fairly certain some more works of his as well as some by Tom Cook.

My first thought was to write eBay an email to complain but knowing how this sort of thing works I figured that would be a lot of hassle for little reward. Besides which the victim isn’t really me as I’ve already given away instructions for free. The victim is the buyer. So I figured I’d alert any buyers who read TBB to this dishonest practise and make sure they don’t get ripped off.

It also presents me with an opportunity to make people aware that this is not a rare practise and that they should always search Flickr, RAILBRICKS and Brickshelf for free copies of instructions before making any purchase on eBay. Also ask the seller if all models are original creations by them. If they lie and you find out then you have a case for dishonest sales practise.

Also, if you spot anyone else doing this please alert me so I can name and shame. If we don’t buy from these parasites then they may stop their bad behaviour.

See comments for other sellers to avoid


EDIT: As there hasn’t been a comment for a while where the author had read the post I’m locking comments to avoid more misinformation and keep my blood pressure low. If you’d like to report any other sellers who I should name and shame please let me know via email.

Also the sales have been pulled by eBay. Thanks to William Noetling for encouraging me to use the eBay VeRO system

46 comments on “Caveat Emptor

  1. stanczyk

    While “[email protected]” is scummy for not providing credit where credit is due, are you ok with someone selling a kit consisting of your instructions and the parts to build it so long as they don’t claim credit for the instructions? For example:

    Here’s a complete kit for a cuban alco. All the parts and directions are included and double checked. We didn’t create this kit, gambort did, but we’ve tracked down every part, as per gambort’s instructions, and put them in the bag, guaranteed. Many thanks to gambort for the instructions.

    What should I do, as an outsider to the Lego community, when I see a something on the Brothers Brick that I want? Who are the reputable sellers?

    In my community, starship combat, we have a similar problems. There haven’t been any simple solutions.

  2. William Noetling

    You as the rightful copyright holder on the works can absolutely get those auctions removed, and reporting a bad auction is very very easy to do. I urge you to do so, it will protect many more buyers than just giving a warning.

    Also if the seller does it again, they will lose their sales account.

  3. gambort Post author

    ^^ If they asked me and I gave them permission I wouldn’t mind. I’m not sure I would give permission but I’m not sure I wouldn’t under the right circumstances.

    I also release some of my instructions under GPL/CC and under those circumstances the license must be obeyed. These two weren’t marked as such and are thus All Rights Reserved. The seller is, as far as I’m aware, breaking the law.

    And with the Cuban Alco I’m especially displeased as they ruined the nice colour scheme and replaced the attractive sand blue with ugly regular blue. That’s adding insult to injury!

    As to what you should do. My simplest advice is to always ask if the sellers has the right to sell the instructions. If they tell the truth then you are informed and can proceed as you wish. If they lie and you later find out then you can complain through eBay that the seller lied. I’m fairly sure that is in breach of their sales policies.

    ^ Thanks for the info. I found the relavent form and submitted a complaint.

  4. Creative Anarchy

    I’ve gotten a lot of cool deals on bricks from ebay in the past. However, I’ve just had so many bad dealings with lego on Ebay that I’m done. If I even recieve the lot, it is usually pretty exadurated in it’s quality or even content. Pieces tend to be missing or worn, marked, even chewed on. At this stage of my life it’s worth the extra money to have store-bought bricks. If I’m going to buy from folks online I buy from bricklink, the accountability is so much better in that community.

  5. Matthew Hocker

    eBay Seller/Culprit: princess1226
    My Civil War Cannon: http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/14444
    Her eBay listing featuring a knock-off of my cannon: http://cgi.ebay.com/LEGO-Custom-Confederate-Civil-War-Lot-w-horse-canon-/120558441581?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c11d7d46d

    Wow, great timing. A week ago I looked up “Lego Civil War” to see what cavalry minifigs are going for these days, as I build Lego Civil War stuff. Well, I found a seller who was selling a “custom Lego Civil War kit” that had a cannon which looked suspiciously like one I made four years ago. I’ve seen her stuff on eBay in the past and, back in the day, I remember her using decals that were made by others. I really don’t think the similarities are a coincidence, since she is selling Lego Civil War stuff. She probably just googled “Lego Civil War Cannon” and went with mine. Granted, I realize it’s nothing beautiful and that she seems to have reversed the direction of certain parts, the similarities are uncanny. I sent her a message politely asking her not to sell anything with that cannon design in it, as I post my stuff for the enjoyment of others at no cost to them. I also let her know that I have no problem with people using my design in their creations but that I draw the line when it comes to selling them. This was a week ago, and I haven’t heard from her since. She doesn’t think she is doing anything wrong, obviously, and it annoys me, but what can I really do? eBay will likely do nothing about it.

  6. Joe

    A problem that regularly crops up on the Lego Star Wars side of eBay is that people sell DVDs of the instructions. These are either downloaded from the LEGO site or Peeron.
    You can’t do anything while the Auction is going on, but you *can* contact the buyer after he/she has left feedback for the seller. From the seller’s feedback page, select the buyer’s profile name, from there, you can contact the buyer. You can only do 3 or 4 of these a day.
    I tell them that the instructions are available for free, where to find them, and how to report the seller. Usually the buyer is grateful to know this, and once enough complaints are received, the seller’s account is suspended.
    (In the case of official LEGO instructions, I usually report it on their site as well.)

    I think that your right though- when dealing with people who are selling “sets” based on your instructions (an actual physical product, not intellectual property exclusively) Or “rip-offs” (not identical to your original instructions) eBay will probably be much harder to convince- as well as the buyer.

  7. Mattiusxavier

    For starters:

    1) I understand other member’s views and plights about this issue as being something wrong….but….

    2) The reality is that we all live in capitalist nations. It’s hard to claim someone is breaking the law when information is granted freely and openly. That is considered open consent. Thus, no law is broken.

    3) They are selling a product (the complete amount of bricks to build a particular model). A seller is providing by the looks of it a hard copy of the instructions and materials to build the model (thus quantifying a product).

    4) If you are that upset, then you might consider a law suite against the Lego Group. They use outside talent and provide bricks to designs all the time. This is not considered illegal, since the designs are granted freely or through other methods. Thus a similar situation.

    5) All I can say is it may be hurtful…but its business and the reality of the world. Welcome to it!

  8. gambort Post author

    ^ I’m quite sure your understanding of copyright is rather wrong. If you design something creative you own the copyright to it and can grant people the ‘right’ to use that copyright (that’s what you buy when you purchase a CD, the ‘right’ to own and use the music). If you do not grant someone the ‘right’ to use something then it is illegal for them to use it. That’s commonly called ‘piracy’.

    You may think that no law is broken. But you are wrong. If you wish to test your claim I suggest you download a copy of a song from bittorrent and then email the record label that owns it to let them know. I’m sure they’ll clear up the issue quite quickly.

    The Wikipedia article may not be legal advice but I can assure you they’ll have the basic details all clear and accurate.

  9. Magnus

    I see no reason to make justifications or excuses for people who pull this kind of shit. This is low.

    Taking something you found for free that was distributed for non-commercial purposes and then incorporating it into something you sell for profit, without asking or even acknowledging the guy who made it available is not just business as usual.

    And while I’m no capitalist myself, I’d guess that most small business owners and entrepeneurs with any shred of professionalism would agree that this goes too far.

  10. SteelWolf

    The shaming of people like this is all well and good, but at the end of the day, their behavior is far more helpful than harmful. The fact that these people are even marginally successful at selling instructions and sets gives you a few valuable pieces of information:

    -The fact that your instructions are freely available could be better advertised.

    -The free instructions have created a market for actual scarce items that the original builder is best equipped to capitalize on. In this case, it seems like sets including the instructions and the required elements would sell. Plus, the original builder will make sure to include the right colors. There’s also print copies of the instructions by themselves – sure, people could print them on their own, but it seems a few people would be willing to pay to get physical copies.

    -Your building skill or personal brand is recognized well enough (even if only in Google searches) that others are banking on it.

    There will always be a few people dumb enough to be suckered by rippers-off, but most others would rather buy from the creator. Rather than worrying about somebody “profiting” from your work, use their attempts as market research and do some profiting yourself.

  11. gambort Post author

    ^ That’s kind of like arguing that if use someone’s song without permission or credit on a compilation CD you’re selling it’s OK because they get free exposure. There may be an iota of truth to it (or not) but it’s both illegal and immoral.

    Had I been asked I may have given permission through a Creative Commons license so that I was fully credited and they fulfilled the conditions of the license. They didn’t ask, the instructions weren’t licensed under CC (most of my new ones are) and they didn’t fulfull the conditions of a CC anyway. It is illegal.

    And while I might be willing to license things that way other people may not. The whole basis of IP law is that the creator (or those who are granted permission) has control.

  12. SteelWolf

    There may be an iota of truth to it (or not) but it’s both illegal and immoral.

    Illegal and immoral? The copyright claim is dubious at best, as methods are explicitly not covered by US copyright law (I assume you’re operating in the US). Regardless, I’m not sure that’s the best road to go down. Ask yourself how your time is better spent – giving attention to a wannabe selling copies on eBay, or using that information to provide your fans with things they want (and make money besides).

    The whole basis of IP law is that the creator (or those who are granted permission) has control.

    That’s actually not what IP law is about in the slightest. At least in the US, copyright and patent monopolies are specifically for the purpose of promoting progress, and are for a limited time. Even if there was a copyright claim, sooner or later somebody will be able to sell your instructions whether or not you give permission. Isn’t it better to capture that market yourself?

    I agree with Magnus that selling other people’s stuff is low, but in the end they’re just hurting their own credibility. Their customers would much rather buy from the original creator, not only to support them but because they are better equipped to provide a superior product.

  13. Peter Morris

    Uh, you are the one who doesn’t understand US Copyright law. You’re completely off your rocker. Tim absolutely owns the copyright to those instructions and that IS what IP law is about. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your understanding of capitalism is wrong as well.

    When I make something, I own it, per the copyright laws, until I die, (and my estate owns it for 70 years after that), period. I and I alone have the right to sell it, market it, use it for whatever purpose I desire. If I catch someone else marketing something I wrote, whether they credit me or not, they are in violation of the law and I can press charges. Think I’m wrong? Go read the law.

  14. kunert

    I’d be annoyed too, if some sleaze was profiting from my work, so I can sympathize. Reality is: an esucker born every minute. Sure, you can try to inform sellers one by one, but it’s hard to stop a wave of naive buyers all too eager to throw their money away in a free society. Same principle keeps televangesists in business.

  15. Gavin

    What’s interesting is that this argument really validates the “Lego Indicia” (studded brick) as a legitimate form of medium; the way clay is to a sculptor or oil paint is to a painter. When you sculpt or paint or build for that matter, your works are nothing until they form some unique fixed expression. There are a lot of Lego “sculptures” out there that could be considered unique enough to warrant fixed expression but it would be really hard to argue that it is absolutely your own form having not borrowed the design from some existing fixed expression like a real building, a real vehicle or even another copyright (e.g. star wars, ferrari) or idea of the public domain (someone mentioned Civil War, hardly a unique idea).
    As a graphic artists it urks me that people steel and profit from unique ideas but art is rarely unique and is mostly imitation anyway. And I think outright selling someones actual original work is down right crummy!

  16. NTXCoog

    SteelWolf said: “At least in the US, copyright and patent monopolies are specifically for the purpose of promoting progress, and are for a limited time. Even if there was a copyright claim, sooner or later somebody will be able to sell your instructions whether or not you give permission. Isn’t it better to capture that market yourself?”

    Although that was the original intent with copyright law, in practice that has been completely abandoned. When the length of the copyright was retroactively extended a few years ago (the Mickey Mouse Protection Act), it potentially makes the length of copyright indefinite because new laws can continue to pass to further extend the length of the copyright.

    Sonny Bono wanted indefinite copyrights, but that pesky Constitution got in the way. So they just found a way around it by passing extensions as needed.

  17. SteelWolf

    ^Pete

    Uh, you are the one who doesn’t understand US Copyright law. You’re completely off your rocker. Tim absolutely owns the copyright to those instructions and that IS what IP law is about. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your understanding of capitalism is wrong as well.

    Copyright does not extend to methods or listings of ingredients Copyright.gov.

    When I make something, I own it, per the copyright laws, until I die, (and my estate owns it for 70 years after that), period. I and I alone have the right to sell it, market it, use it for whatever purpose I desire. If I catch someone else marketing something I wrote, whether they credit me or not, they are in violation of the law and I can press charges. Think I’m wrong? Go read the law.

    That is simply untrue. Copyright laws give you a limited government-granted monopoly (the ridiculous extensions notwithstanding), but even so there are numerous exceptions for Fair Use and to allow people to resell what they have purchased.

    My point, however, is that the entire copyright angle, even if valid, is a poor use of time. The people perpetrating situations like these are no better than infomercial sales pitchers, but they an annoyance at worst, and free market research at best.

  18. gambort Post author

    ^ It is the end result that I consider in breach of copyright, not the steps to make it. And given that Megablocks and other legitimate competitors to TLG have never copied TLGs models I assume that they know what is and is not legal.

    But as you say launching a lawsuit or similar would just be pointless. Writing a post on a popular blog, however, seems a very useful way to get the message out there.

  19. Ralph Savelsberg (Mad physicist)

    A builder goes to the trouble of making instructions freely available so that anybody who wants to can build the model in question and somebody else takes those instructions and starts selling them without any reference to the original builder. I don’t really care what IP or copyright law say about that: that’s just wrong.

    Perhaps it is better to capture that market yourself, but that undermines the whole idea of freely sharing information. I’m currently planning to make instructions for a few of my models and I’ll give serious thought to only allowing people that I know and trust to use them.

  20. SteelWolf

    I’m currently planning to make instructions for a few of my models and I’ll give serious thought to only allowing people that I know and trust to use them.

    From where I stand, that’s precisely the wrong response. It sounds like you’re so worried some schmuck might be able to bilk a few suckers by selling your instructions that you’re willing to deprive your fans and your community of something they would value. That just seems backwards to me.

    So somebody’s selling copies of your stuff. Who cares? When their few customers realize they’re paying some hack who’s aping stuff that’s freely available, it’s the hack who ends up looking bad. Upset that people are getting ripped off? Advertise your site more heavily (but know there will always be dumb marks). Mad that they’re making money and you’re not? Figure out what it is they’re selling and do it yourself, using your natural advantage to make it better.

  21. Matthew Hocker

    ^Gavin
    [i]There are a lot of Lego “sculptures” out there that could be considered unique enough to warrant fixed expression but it would be really hard to argue that it is absolutely your own form having not borrowed the design from some existing fixed expression like a real building, a real vehicle or even another copyright (e.g. star wars, ferrari) or idea of the public domain (someone mentioned Civil War, hardly a unique idea).[/i]

    Maybe basing a model off of a theme isn’t unique, but the overall configuration of the parts sure as heck can be as far as I’m concerned (just like the configuration of words in a poem or speech. I’m not talking about individual techniques either, by the way). Anyone who knowingly engages in copying that configuration for their own personal gain without acknowledging the original source material is, in effect, being dishonest to the public and disrespectful to the original builder. I don’t care whether or not instructions/models are protected under copyright law. These people have taken the easy way out, which is never admirable.

  22. brickbums

    WHY DOESNT SOMEONE SET UP A SITE WHERE PEOPLE WHO MAKE INSTRUCTIONS CAN SELL THEM FOR A ROYALTY FEE , TO PEOPLE WHO PUT TOGETHER AND SELL CUSTOM SETS , THAT WAY THE THE DESIGNER GETS FULL CREDIT AND A FEE PER SET SOLD , AND THE DEALER CAN MAKE MONEY TOO . MAKES SENSE ALL ROUND .

  23. Josh

    ^Brickbums – Good idea. Since you came up with it, why don’t you do it? That’s how this site came to exist.

  24. Mattiusxavier

    Lol! This is all trivial.

    You can all argue law this and law that…however, I’m sure no one here is a lawyer. So its just fine to claim legal limits, but lets face a fact we all have broken the law in some way shape or form and shouldn’t cry wolf at each other for any reason. We all know that we can only learn one aspect of the law and claim bias from it.

    Consider this…
    We are all technically legal users of the Lego Groups products and make creations, custom or otherwise through there vested sale of products. So technically, all our claims to copyrights here really extend from someone else’s anyways. We only hurt each other by providing bitterness towards others who are out there buying creations and being happy.

    My suggestion. Let it go and be happy with life. Continue to create and share.

  25. worker201

    While I agree that this would make a hellishly hard legal case, and definitely advise that it shouldn’t be pursued via litigation, I have to say that becoming eBay’s biggest jackass in order to compete with these clowns is also extremely bad advice. The goal here is not to make the internet worse, it’s to make the internet better. Although everyone likes money, it’s not about the money. A citizen’s shutdown standing on moral principle is in everyone’s best interests.

  26. Bunbrick

    Some unrelated things…

    SteelWolf wrote:
    “Copyright does not extend to methods or listings of ingredients [Copyright.gov. link]”
    You’re right it doesn’t, according to that link.

    But this kind of material seems perfectly suited to fall under ‘Visual Arts Works’
    http://www.copyright.gov/register/va-examples.html
    How about ‘technical drawings’, and/or ‘models’?

    I know that still doesn’t make it worth the legal hassle, but labelling this work as a mere ‘listing’ isn’t really looking at it fairly.

    Another thing: couldn’t you guys who are making digital instructions at least start protection your hard work somewhat already, by adding some kind of watermark to every single instruction page, perhaps something that states the name of the creator, the fact that is distributed free of charge, etc.
    Maybe that’s even something that could be considered for inclusion on a programming level, in the popular CAD softwares that you use to make your instructions?

    Mattiusxavier: “We are all technically legal users of the Lego Groups products and make creations, custom or otherwise through there vested sale of products. So technically, all our claims to copyrights here really extend from someone else’s anyways.”

    Right. So does BEHR/Histor/etc own any painting made with their fine choice of colours? Is that what you’re saying? LEGO is a BUILDING material, literally. They can have the copyright on their models, on their shapes, but at the end of the day, i form something new with the -raw material- they provide. I don’t see how they can have any claim in that, not as long as i don’t blatantly copy their original works and try to pawn it off as my own.

  27. gambort Post author

    Some points on legality

    1) TLG do not have any legal rights here. I know this from copyright lawyers.

    2) It is quite clear that a LEGO model is indeed covered by copyright law. Otherwise building brick companies would be ripping each other off willy nilly.

    3) The people selling these instructions have stolen copyrighted material and resold it. This is illegal.

    Some points on ethics

    1) It is not very ethical to sell someone else’s work as your own.

    2) If you genuinely believe that you have added to the model yourself then you may feel you have an ethical claim.

    3) Thus what these people do is actually more ethical than it is legal.

    Some points on practise

    1) eBay provide a way to report misuse of copyright. I have used it before and a listing was removed. I’ve used it this time and will encourage James and Tom to do the same. It’s all very easy.

    2) I’m not going to be suing anyone. I don’t care enough.

    3) I write for a popular blog. This gives me a power over the seller that they can’t fight, argue with or play stupid legal games with. I’ve used it and there’s now people who probably won’t buy from those stores who otherwise may have. I win (as do we all).

    4) I can’t embed copyright in the MPD. I could make printed instructions with the copyright embedded but that’s too much like work.

    As for all the drivel about capitalism, peace, love and whatnot. I don’t care. If I want to sell instructions I’ll do it. If I want to give them away I’ll continue to do so. If I spot anyone doing this to my work (or anyone else’s) I’ll name and shame again.

    PS. Mattiusxavier, can you publish your address here please? I’d like a new TV and figured you wouldn’t mind me breaking in and taking yours. Cheers :)

  28. Ryan Mulligan

    What you say in this post is incorrect. If the person is really profiting off of your instructions, they do so *not* at your expense. If the value is really coming from the instructions and they know about them, the people would not buy them and merely get them for free from you. The only conclusion you can draw from their behavior is that they do not know about your instructions (they wouldn’t have been your customers anyway), and the value is coming from collecting the correct bricks to give to the customer. Withdrawing your instructions will only decrease value, it will not increase your own profit.

  29. gambort Post author

    ^ It is quite obvious you neither read my post nor looked at the auction in question. Kindly refrain from posting until you do.

  30. Mattiusxavier

    My suggestion, let it go already. Be happier, and just let bygones be bygones. =) After all, they are just designs. Its not like history isn’t full of people using other people’s designs. :P

  31. gambort Post author

    I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve never made something worth copying. If you had you’d probably see abuse of your work differently.

    Overall I’m quite happy about the scenario and will be even happier once the auction is pulled and the seller has a black mark against their name. There’s even some private discussion going on about a solution which would benefit the whole community.

  32. Mattiusxavier

    I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt as well Gambort and assume that you think you might be right about something for the first time in your life, but in reality… really are wrong and have lost a huge amount of respect from your peers for believing they might never have created anything worth having copying. After all, everyone has created something that someone has copied…this can range from designs, to academic works. However, giving stuff freely away…well frankly that is just setting yourself up to be used and you might as well accept the fact that it was going to happen eventually.

    As for having the moral high ground, you lost it the day you sought out action over something that could potentially breed slander, harassment and break several other laws in the process. Having the moral high ground in this situation is understanding something is wrong, contacting the seller and humbly requesting they remove said auctions. Taking further action or Black listing them will only hurt them and your credibility. It shows that you are willing to get down and participate at the same level and abuse others as you feel they have abused you.

    As for a solution its simply, just provide designs to your friends, if you want to do it openly, expect abuse and be a cool beaver, let the water slide off your back.

    As for myself, I have provided designs, various forms of information and other creations to the world openly where they have been copied and used by various individuals. These designs are never limited to just lego and have more pratical and important implications. So yes, I have had stuff copied on me that are of great importance. However, I care not because the fact is its going to happen either way.

    Gambort, its a good post to bring awareness, but you should have left it at that.

  33. gambort Post author

    Wow! You certainly have a lot of confidence for someone whose first contribution to this thread was utterly wrong and whose subsequent posts have added even less. If you wish to continue this discussion contact me on Flickr or by email.

  34. SteelWolf

    Making a post here advertising that people can get these things for free elsewhere is useful in that it helps prevent the ignorant from being ripped off. The copyright claims, takedown requests, and other gymnastics aren’t terribly helpful. Matt’s right in pointing out that there will always be somebody copying your work – certainly if what you do has any popularity.

    If you’re upset that people are getting bilked, raise awareness (as the author of the post has done). If you’re upset that somebody else is making money, use the information to do it better yourself (as I mentioned in previous posts).

  35. Mattiusxavier

    Lol! Gambort, your rebuttle to my response shows me less than an accurate view. I gave you a chance to keep the moral high ground. Instead you used this thread as a way to attack your peers and make them lose respect for you and your thread.

    1) My first post wasn’t wrong. It was simply pointing out open consent. Its a simple concept and although you might sometimes think you are a lawyer you have not identified yourself as one. Of course neither have I. So the law is something more elusive for the both of us to attempt to truly convey. Therefore, we have no true authority upon this subject. We simply offer opinions, which I accept and offer freely, like everyone else. This implies I’m neither wrong, nor are you. Nor does this imply you are right.

    2) You have yet to prove you are truly right about your posts. Although you might offer conjecture, you can not for any reason claim you are more right than I outside of your opinion (Thus your close minded world).

    3) As for adding less, I have not sought out to add or minus. I have sought out to provide sound advice. If you don’t want to take it and hold the moral high road as a standard so be it. After all I was just trying to offer more rational advice that is designed for anyone to see both sides of an open picture rather than just a one sided opinion based upon hurt feelings.

  36. gambort Post author

    ^^ Is that addressed to me? If so you may wish to do some username checking.

    Your entire argument seems to be that the correct response to someone abusing generosity is to address your own behaviour and not theirs. The best response, in my opinion (which is ultimately the only one that counts here) is a two-pronged one: challenge the offender and make my work better available. I’ve taken action on both accounts.

  37. Mattiusxavier

    I agree with SteelWolf.

    @ Gambort, The correct response is the community response. The individual can make a choice, but ultimately it comes down to how the community feels.

  38. Marcus Aurelius

    WOW! Just read through this. I’m quite surprised at the heated debate here.

    Its interesting…although I find it a little dubious. The whole argument seems somewhat based around copyrights…although I suppose this varries from nation to nation. I just don’t think its a big enough issue to consider here. After all this never stopped Apple from taking Linux’s designs for an OS. =( I suppose if you make a few changes here and there its enough to be considered someone elses creation. Thats often what happens to me. Oh well…its just lego. =)

    But I would have to say that I agree with Steel, Matthew, Ryan, Mattius, and others. I also think that we all should just try to find a resolution that works for all of us and I suppose follow a principle of the Precautionary view to do no harm.

    Cheers,
    Marcus

  39. gambort Post author

    ^ OS X is perfectly legal under Copyright law because OpenBSD is licensed under an open source license. As are some of my new instructions which can, quite legally, be sold on a CD like these ones provided credit is provided. The old ones, however, are not.

Comments are closed.