No it’s not illegal
It’s called retailing:
You are allowed to advertise the products you sell. Even if you don’t make them. You can even use their trademarks to identify them - that’s what trademarks are for.
Alice has been developing her own enhancements, and they're pretty similar to Bob's.
Neither Alice nor Bob has copied the other's enhancements, so neither has violated the other's copyright in the enhancements. Whether that could be proved in court is another matter, of course, but since the original work is licensed under creative commons the question ...
Pretty standard contract lawyer
You negotiate a price for the information, put it in a contract, you give them the info they give you the money. Depending on trust levels you might set up an escrow system.
Essentially this is no different from what every profession does every day: a professional sells knowledge.
1. Is Bob's usage considered a derivative work under US copyright law?
Under US law, a derivative work is:
… a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in ...
The bar for novelty, innovation and inventiveness is not as high as you seem to think
A process is novel or innovative or inventive unless it is not novel or innovative or inventive when compared to prior art where that prior art is:
a single document,
2 or more related documents,
a single specification.
While there was prior are for windscreen ...
Source code that forms a derived work from Open Source code may be created internally in a company. This is legal because Open Source conditions trigger only on distribution. However, if this source code would be distributed outside the company, it must happen on the relevant Open Source conditions. This usually also applies to ...
The scope of the license is a bit murky, since it just refers to "this software". The intent of the license author is not exactly relevant, because the license author isn't the person with the right to permit copying, the author of the content is. When a content-creator make a vague reference to a canned license, it is not at all clear what they wanted to ...
First and foremost - ask your lawyer
I'm not looking at or commenting on your terms of service because that's legal advice and you need your lawyer to do that.
Copyright can't be infringed by the user because, as you say, they make no copies. If you infringe someone's copyright, that's between you and them and cannot involve your ...
If selling it does not break the terms of the agreement it can be sold
If it does, it can’t.
If future sales are an issue then it’s incumbent on the parties to deal with it.
It should be noted that this agreement on its own does not bind third=parties including this hypothetical buyer. For them to be bound their sales contract would have to incorporate ...