LSL: Get rid of PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS !

PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS

Why does it exist ? it's been the bane of my Second Life for about a year!

Please remove it, or perhaps make it easier to transfer certain kinds of objects that use it. If an object inside an object inside an object contains a script that requires scripted linking, it's impossible to transfer that object without all sorts of complications....

For my reason see this thread ...

Yah, I haven't been able to figure out why this even exists. Maybe I'll ask in the answer's forum... "why does this exist"?

I agree, it shouldn't be necessary for objects with the same creator AND owner certainly;
ie if you own several items by me, then those items would be able to link to each other as they please, but not to any of your other items. Similar they couldn't link to items created by me that are owned by someone else

If the script is trying to link to ANY object owned by you (and could be created by any number of different people) then it would require permission to do so.

I'm not getting it. What is this protecting? If you have MOD on the object, then a script owned by you should be able to link it regardless of who the creator is. If you don't have MOD, then you shouldn't be able to change that by granting PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS.

I dunno about you but I don't want to be able to buy an item that can suddenly start manipulating my stuff without permission, at least if it asks then you have some idea of what to expect.
Any script that I can think of that would require linking to be performed should only be doing so to it's own objects (e.g a game that spawns pieces and then links to them to send link-messages rather than using llSay). If it's a script that I've bought from someone to manipulate my objects (rather than ones it came with/created) then granting it permission wouldn't be a problem as I'd be expecting it to change links.

I'd be pretty upset if something I rezzed suddenly glommed onto one of my mod/no-copy objects and started unlinking it like some decomposing bacteria. It might even be possible to nuke some of the pieces... or simply glom on and then delete its newly-enlarged self. That's probably why this permission exists.

OK, I can see that for *creating* links. But why should you need it for *breaking* links?

You wouldn't, but I'm under the impression this thread is for PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS in general which iirc is for both linking and delinking

I agree that requiring it for de-linking makes little sense, so wouldn't restrict that.

If I understand this problem correctly, it's that objects rezzed from another objects inventory don't inherit the avatar permissions the parent had.

I ran into this same problem and reported it as a bug. There's no reason the parts of an object that are in inventory shouldn't have the same permissions (after they are rezzed) that the entire object has.

That is the crux of the matter.

But I tend to agree that any prim I created should be allowed to link to any other prim I created without needing permission. Perhaps the caveat should be that the scripts AND the prims must be created by the same person and that would prevent most potential greifing.

Bug reporting in SL is a complete waste of time. Even though I do it.
I feel it's a waste of energy. I reported this a year ago and again since.
Sometimes I imagine the 1000s of bug reports sent in everyday and wonder how they could possibly deal with it ! Placibo effect ?

Why not just add a link key, rather like the one LSL uses to allow/reject llRemoteLoadScriptPin, instead of using PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS? That way, an item can grant permission to be linked by any other object, owned by the same owner, that knows the pin? Or just add this functionality in addition to PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS, so that you can use one or the other?

Really, the inability for an object to modify its own links is silly.

this sounds like a good idea too.




further to this, it's not only objects in nested inventories but scripts in other prims in the same link set as the master script cannot delink without their own permissions either. This means each script in an object requires it's own permissions and would need to ask the owner individually each time. Actually to be honest I think that's the same with all permissions not just linking but it can be a pain to get around sometimes. eg : ideally you could send a link message to the link set and have any prim unlink itself, but you can't. You actually need to obtain the link number of the prim and unlink it using the script which has the permission. There are loads of ways to do that but it's more of a pain than simply having the prim unlink itself. Especially if the prim is already scripted.

[ ideally we'd have link trees, ie the ability to link objects rather than individual prims, and do really cool animations ! ]