New permission behavior

Thank you!!

Yay!! Thank you LL!

>>BLINK<<< excuse me please elaborate on that as that was a walk down a winding trail.

Are they saying that if you have a Child object that has more restrictions than the parent the child while linked to the parent will retain the parents permissions but when it is unlinked it will go back to being more restrictive.

For instance if I have the following.

A= Parent with Mod/Transfer Options

B= Child with No Mod/No Transfer Options

Thus when A is linked to B and A is in the parent Position the new Linked set would be Mod / Transfer

and when Unlinking B from A it reverts B back to the No Mod / No Transfer Perms.

If thats the Case I see a big ass screw up here because all that means is a No Transfer Object then can become permanetly Transferable by adding a new parent prim to it that is transferable with copy mods...sorry doesnt sound quite right.

Shadow

Does this mean if you sell an object with modify enabled, anyone who buys it can change the copy/transfer permissions by simply adding their own parent prim??

I assume (perhaps wrongly) that this means that a linked object will be only as permissive as its least permissive child. So linking a no-copy object to a copyable object will not make that child object become copyable.

Major translation please.

I speak only English.

I am also struggling to work out what this means.
Yours totally confuzzled
Cali

They're saying child objects which are less permissive will not become more permissive due to the parent object being more permissive.

To me, "more permissive" would mean the next owner is allowed to do more. Most permissive would mean the next owner can mod, copy, and transfer.

Yet the example they gave showed that a child object with no modify being changed to modify enabled once being linked to a parent which has mod enabled. The example doesn't match what they've described.

If a more permissive parent doesn't make a child more permissive, then the child prim in their example should end up being "no copy, no mod, transfer."

Here's the example that was given...

For example: If you have an object with next owner permissions set to [copy, no modify, transfer] and you link that object to a parent with the next owner permissions of [no copy, modify, transfer], then the child's next owner permissions will be set to match the parent object's next owner permissions of [no copy, modify, transfer]

Okay can you dumb it down just a little bit more please?

Oh nevermind I read it a few times and I get it now lol

uh oh.

If you link stuff together the item will take on the permissions of the main prim.

ok the way I read it is that all child primatives will assume the permissions of that of the parent prim. That sounds kinda cool...but..

Surely this means that any modifiable object purchased can have its copy/trans permissions changed simply by linking it to another a new parent prim with permissions set by the owner? If I have got this wrong, someone please correct me lol

Also just out of interest, which prim would be the parent if this new parent prim was detached from the object?

The way I read it, I think that's what they FIXED.

So if another object is added, and the new prim is selected last, it will not be the parent prim?

No, I think it's like...

Let's say you had a prim that you made, that was full mod/copy/transfer. Now, let's say you had a chair that was mod, but no copy/no transfer. If you linked the chair with the full mod prim (your prim) as the root prim, the chair (child prims) would go full-mod too.

I think.

In other words, they closed another permissions loophole, so people can protect their copyright and all that shtuff.

But how can that be done? I mean if the child prims all assume the root prims permissions in the first place, how do you work it so yet another prim cannot be added as the root prim?

Child prims do not become more permissive when linked to a parent that is more permissive.

If the way I am reading that is correct, and a copy object is a more permissive than a no copy obkject, I think i finally get it lol. doh!!

Hmm - I believe this example in the release notes doesn't reflect the new behavior they are describing correctly:



Shouldn't the child prim now have permissions of [no copy, no modify, transfer]? As it is written here.. the child is becoming more permissive than it was before (no-mod becoming mod)...

Agreed, it must be a typo. The example does not follow the rules they have stated.

It wouldn't be so hard to understand if their example didn't contradict their explanation of the change.

Lordfly, the example you're giving with the chair does the same thing. If I sell you a chair with mod enabled and you link a prim to it with all permissions enabled, then it changes the entire chair to "all permissions enabled," that is not a fix to a loophole. That is creating a loophole. It's making it so that if we give away or sell anything with mod enabled, we may as well enable all permissions since anyone else can do so simply by adding a new parent prim.

In release notes, they said a less permissive child will not take on the permissions of a more permissive parent, but the example given contridicted that statement, so it makes it confusing.

I'm referring to the example in this thread --> /120/08/34609/1.html

I didn't go look for the original release notes posted by the Lindens. I assume the example posted in the quoted release notes was one given by the Lindens. If not, that explains the contridictory example.

Stormy I think that was the lindens explination I will check it and get back here with everyone.

Shadow

Hmmm. May need to experiment with this when they get the grid back up. Predictable permissions are kind of a sticking point with me, given how quirky the system's been in the past. I really wish their example didn't contradict their initial statement in the release notes, but I can see how difficult it is to write this in a way that makes sense.

Time to start cranking out sample prims, I guess.

Ok here is the interpretation as I recieved it from LL. The wording is a bit misleading and confusing at best so here goes an attempt at a better explination.


Person A Creates an object. The parent prim in that object is what the permissions are set at. Upon Transfer to Person B the Permissions in the Parent prim set all the Child Perms the same.

Example Parent Prim is MOD/NoCopy/NoTransfer

The Child Prims then take on that charateristic.

Now the Object has changed ownership 1 time. Thus attaching a "New" prim by the "New" owner will not superceed the orginal Permissions given by the first owner.

So Person B cannot Attach a new Prim with Full Modifications and Overide the orginal "No Transfer" or "No Copy" permissions set by the orginal Owner.

They can attach a prim of course because its Modify but even with it being the new parent Prim it will not superceed the orginal permissions set by the first owner.

Does that sound clearer?

The big thing missed was the fact that the permissions become set upon transfer of ownership.

Sincerely, Shadow

So basically someone cannot reset the permissions of an object by linking it to a new root prim (with full perms), if that root prim has not been created by the same av as the original object?