Sniper, please do not confuse the terms "freeware" and "free software". The terms do sound similar, but there is a difference. "Free software" is software that is
both "free" as in "free of charge" and "free" as in "freedom", in that it is distributed under a free software license, i. e. a license that grants the end-user permission to modify, redistribute, build-upon, etc., without direct contact with the copyright holder for permission, but possibly with a few simple restrictions such as crediting the original author, sharing alike (i. e. distributing your modified work under the same or a similar license to the one of the original work), etc., which are simple and small restrictions that should not be much of a problem for most people.
However, the term "freeware" is software that is "free" as in "free of charge", but is usually distributed under a restrictive (i. e. "non-free") license, restricting the user's right to modify, redistribute, build-upon, etc., the original work, in contrast to "free software". That is, "freeware" is software that is usually
only "free" as in "free of charge", and
not "free" as in "freedom".
I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on freeware, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware, and notice how the article discussed the contrast between freeware and free software.
The comments here that are directed at you here were posted here for
your own good, to help prevent
you from being jumped on by an angry content creator, whether now or in the future. That is it. Ever heard of the old saying "better to be safe than sorry"?
I do believe that it would be better if all creators who have non-free copyright restrictions on their works would state that explicitly in a license, to make it clear to end-users that their works are protected by copyright as such, so that any ambiguity in the copyright holders' restricitions on their works is prevented, but with it being the case that not all creators do so, it is better to be safe than sorry and ask the original creator for permission.
Our comments are not putting down your reskinning work; they are simply intended to teach you about copyright properly so that you do not get yourself into trouble.
And just because "99%" of the reskins on the Download Station do not show any indication of retrieving permission from the original creator to release the reskin, does not mean that the people who released those reskins were doing the right thing. That 99% of reskins on the DLS could very well all be copyright violations. If everyone in my town except me smoked and drank alcohol, would that mean that it would be okay for me to do so also? No.
Kind regards,
Retro00064.