The Effects of Dangerous Scripts

Because my attempts to consolidate discussion in Scripting Tips and Feature Suggestions seem to completely contradict the bulk of posts to my script in question in the Library, I'm going to release this discussion on General. In light of the move to General discussion, I have cut out the "Rez Code" of the script itself, rendering the script impotent until discussion ceases.

The root question: What is our stance, as a (SL forum) community, on objects that could potentially usurp one's creator rights over "Modify" and "No Copy" objects? Does this automation of the process, even on a prim-by-prim basis, render the need for further permissions to the system? Even if there is sufficient recourse to this by setting one's objects "No Modify," how does this affect trades that need aspects of "Modify" to do business?

Preface: I'm going with my gut on this one, and what seems to be the minority opinion, because I feel the rights clothiers and attachment-makers have to a "limited modify without the threat of theft" are valid. However, "copying by numbers" and "script-copy" are things that have been around a long time, and historically, things LL has tried to usurp.

Furthermore, what is the threshhold we, as scripters, can publish scripts with a potential to abuse? To state several personal examples, the last three scriptsets I've created all came "out of the box" with scripted "gimping code" to prevent misuse by people that are not savvy enough with the engine to (mis)use it themselves. However, most recently, several valid concerns came to light that this might just be "commented out" from the Library function, even if it's well-hidden.

Must we, as scripters, be forced to release only the barest-of-safe code to the Library, or can we take calculated risks to do good? It's a simple question, and if anyone, I as a freeware scripter who tests the boundaries should be asking it.

"The path to hell is paved with good intentions," after all.

When considering what stuff I want to develop and release for the community, I abide by a simple "piss off" standard. If I think it'll piss off too many people, I don't do it.

Case in point:
I hesitated for the longest time putting in a push script for the bullets in my gun. Eventually, I realized there were legit reasons why you'd want to throw someone up in the air 500m, and so I made the person confirm each and every time the push mode is enabled that they would abide by the TOS in the gun's use. I figured if they used it to grief, it'd be one more thing Lindens could point to and say, "Look, you even knew this wasn't a good idea because ... " etc.

Hiro's methodology is pretty simple, so I can relate, and I like the name of "Hiro's Piss-off Law" too. Or HPL for short.

I used his gun the other day in push mode to blast a whole pile of cubes for fun. Not to shoot anyone in particular.

I don't want to have to keep asking "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS! DON'T VIOLATE TOS D00D!!!1", but the straightforward acknowledgement was enough.

I agree, Hiro. The problem is this is also a concensual thing - believe me, I'm not "liable" for the harm directly because the creator must consent "Modify" - but in the same light, people that consent to allow "Modify" at times need some aspects of the permission, but not others. Furthermore, this is a minority "issue" that seems to have been swept under the rug.

For example, attachment-makers need a means to allow people to "resize" their objects to allow for different avatar shapes and sizes without allowing people to "steal" or "copy" their work. As a scripter, it would be possible to add a script to each piece of the object to do this with "No Modify" set... but how feasible is this to someone that can't script? How easy is this to abuse, lag-wise?

Maybe this makes a compelling case for more script-based options?

Meanwhile, it's time for some more drastic measures to get this thread looked at.

I dealt with a similar issue in my blades. They are released in two sizes, and there's a color changing script inside to let users customize the look. The script llDie()s if removed, and there's a function in the script to kill the scripts once you're done customizing. Combine this with my copy/no transfer permissions, and you have the ability to customize your sword to your liking over and over without needing mod rights.

/agree

But again, how does this impact non-scripters or builders that allow other forms of customization in their objects, such as variable resize, additions, texture changes, etc? I know from my experiences that this is not only hard to do for the scripting newbie, but potentially lag-inducing as well.

I know there's a pretty strong showing for the mech community as far as customization options are concerned (say, change the armament, material, color, size....). Furthermore, Michi and eltee's responses to my previous thread(s) represent another group of builders that would be hurt by such a release. While I'm all for getting knowledge "out there" so it can be used in proper scenarios, I do respect the rights of those I could potentially "hurt" with a release.

Perhaps it's time to release a freeware API for scripted-modifications?