Should NO MOD also mean MODing the Objects Contents?

That's an easy one: you put the autodestructs in the scripts that make the product worthwhile, not separate scripts.

[My emphasis.]That scared the heck out of me until I got my alt to test it. As far as I can tell, it's the same as it's been for as long as I can remember: it's possible to reset no-mod scripts, as long as they're in modify-permitted objects. Whether that makes sense or not has been debated, but I'd have a lot of broken content if it changed at this point.

So, I'm not sure what this statement means. (If it was ever possible to reset No-Mod scripts in No-Mod objects, that must have been before my time.)

Anyway, the referenced jira is even more confused. I tried to explain in a comment how if they actually got the change they're requesting, and if the problem the change is trying to address were real, then the change would just encourage wider adoption of scarier stuff (CopyBot+GLintercept, etc.). I know they don't get it, but I don't have the heart to try to explain further; although they're slitting their own throats, they're just so damned *earnest* about it that one hates to be more discouraging.

This is exactly how i feel.

The moment a person buys some innocuous object that they really like, but hate the script they cannot pull out, Copy ot will get fired up and logged in real quick.

Well, I don't know about that. Like I said, I have a whole bunch of mo-mod vehicles with really BAD control scripts but nice modelling that I can't use even as props because just rezzing them and leaving them sitting is laggy. I'd have to make a little tight no-script parcel in the middle of the build to hold the thing, and that's a technique that's got limited application...

But I'm not going to copybot them, I'll just do something else.

I had a few discussions with people, asking for unscripted versions, offered to pay for them, no good. Got some NASTY responses, as if I was trying to hack them. I wonder if some hysterical builder with the ear of a Linden got this kind of perfectly legitimate use treated as an "exploit" by LL.