The unofficial new permissions system discussion thread...

...because it's silly to have an important discussion tucked away from the forums away from most prying eyes.

As far as I can tell, the new permissions system will unlock all scripts for prying minds to see.

What's to prevent someone from looking at your script, copying it to a notepad program outside of SL, making their own script, and copying it back in?

Isn't this going to open up email and XML servers to exploits and DoS attacks?

Not only that, but how are scripters supposed to be compensated for, arguably, the hardest work in the economic system of SL? After all, it just takes one copy that becomes "public domain" of your proprietary gun system to make it useless.

LF

The only problem I see is that it will make object duplication easier. Scripts will be protected, given the three choices outlined in Cory's blog.

But objects will have full information exposed after the wrapper 'breaking', which means you can use a variety of means to make knockoffs, put in an inferior script to roughly duplicate behavior, and make off with your loot after sale.

If you think I'm wrong, great, I would like to be proven wrong in this case

As I said in the blog, I think this is overblown and over complicated for your average content creating joe.

And if they can't get today's 3-bit perms system right, how on earth can we expect to be confident in one that is infinitely more complex?

Right now, perms in inventory don't match perms inworld when they obviously should, and it's no more than a lottery as to what happens when you transfer it to someone. But fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with the system, save for a few additions that would be nice. It just doesnt work as advertised.

I vote that rather than develop something completely new that they improve the current system. Add things that make it far easier to work with - such as either a default behaviour or at least an option that if you set an objects perms, it overrides ALL the perms of everything inside it, so that you don't have the stupid situations you have now of having to hunt through dozens of textures and scripts to find out why the hell you can't set the correct perms on your own stuff, despite being the original creator of all the components.

Oh, and a 'default preferences' option for things like scripts, objects, clothing etc so you can dictate your standard preferred set of perms for all objects and only change them when they deviate from that.

So much for trying to create a game within Second Life. A large part of our combat system depends on the ability to prevent duplication / exploitation. By changing the permissions system, Second Life will no longer have to question WHY there isn't any game development going on.

One step forward... Ten steps back!

These 4 posts highlight something that occured to me yesterday as I read Cory's blog - it's about as clear as mud. I mean Lordfly, Maxx, Kris and Prong - you have all read parts of this differently to each other and differently to me. If we're having trouble understanding the basic thrust behind the new permissions, what hope will we have of new players or those not familiar with the new permissions when they arrive, actually understanding either.

And in the spirit of the townhaLETS GO RIDE BIKES

huh?

I completely agree and I am also with Kris on this. Some of my objects absolutely rely on hidden information. And I can't imagine any serious game application with publicly visible scripts.

I hope I misunderstood this. Is it really that Cory suggested that in the future all scripts would be readable? If this is really the plan, then I suggest that the same rule applies to the source code of my Second Life client

I believe I heard from Cory's town hall that there will be at least one permission option (I think it was the copyrighted one) that will make scripts un-readable.

But yeah - I think a clearer picture needs to be made for us than what is currently available about what all this will mean and how it is going to affect things. Its too bad the town hall wasn't really publicized either. It was funny sitting in the Lime / Plum repeater location all by myself.

I find the complete lack of pulicity over this town hall event, especially when it concerns something that will be a major change, quite head-sratch-worthy. Was it arranged at the last minute? I can't remember a town hall not being advertised before.

We need Fair Use. We need Right of First Sale. Our creations are real digital works, and these rights apply to them just as well as anything tangible in the real world.

Here are some examples of where the current system falls short:

- Whether to make something nocopy/trans or copy/notrans are constant problems, as is the problem of wanting to buy something that is the opposite of what it's sold for.

- If I buy two attachments, and one of them is no-modify, I can't merge them together into one object.

- I can't even change the color of something that I own.

- What if the creator for something I bought is no longer in SL and I want to make a change or get another copy?

- It would be nice if I could turn a pair of no-mod jeans that I bought into a pair of jean shorts.

- It would be nice if I could break the wrapper on an item of clothing and be able to put it into multiple "outfit" folders.


However, I do recognize the concerns that content creators have:

- How will counterfeiting be kept under control when an owner can "unwrap" an object to gain modify rights for Fair Use, and then have visual access to all of the numbers used to build the prims that make up the object?

- How does Fair Use interfere with a content creator's needs?

- How does right of First Sale interfere with a content creator's needs?

For the last two questions, what are some examples where this may be a problem and what can be done to address these problems while still going forward with the new system?

Let's go forward from here by constructively discussing how we could make this new system work instead of jumping right out of our seats and rejecting it blindly. If there are concerns, let us discuss what could be put in place to address those concerns instead of rejecting the whole concept.

Additionally, the current permissions system may be a set of technical restrictions to be applied to how an object is handled in SL's code, but they say nothing specific about a content creator's copyright restrictions over the object.

For example, how can you tell what copyright restrictions are on something that is "Free to Copy"? Is it Public Domain, GPL, BSD, CC Attribution-ShareAlike?

The proposed permissions system will bring the current technical restrictions more in line with how copyright restrictions usually work.

Your right... What the hell am I thinking!

Its ONLY five plus months of production time, a private island purchase, hundreds of dev hours, and a ton of money spent on the custom scripting... All could easily be rendered useless in a Linden minute.

How selfish of me...

I will submit myself for immediate reconditioning...

I don't understand where people are getting the idea that all of their scripts will be opened up? Did you not read the part about the Closed Source option for scripts?

Could you provide more details as to the specific changes which will be detremental to your current build? As in: "X will cause Y to be Z, and that will cause me to lose all of my work", as you imply in your post.

Perhaps the last minute nature of this Town Hall was on purpose to allow the Lindens to casually get the conversation going on this far-in-the-future development. Just based on this thread, it is obviously an important topic and that there are different interpretations on what was talked about so far. Perhaps this first foray into the discussion will help to nip misinformation in the bud. I'm confident that this was just the first of many discussions to come regarding permissions.

I will be posting a chat log from the Town Hall later tonight here and also posting inworld at The News Stands. Send me an IM if you'd like a notecard sent directly to you.

Simply put, the last two client updates released by LL created so much work for us, I fear that a total overhaul of the permission could simply put us right out of business. Unless you happen to be involved in such a large project, it would be hard for you to understand my concerns.

As someone has already mentioned, the proposal isn't quite clear as to the impact this could / would have on current items already functioning in world. Every time the Lindens make a change to the current system, we have to fix something with our combat system.

Do you think that such a big change could be implemented without incident?

So far, having read through the proposal once, my first thought is I hope to god they remove naming conventions like "Creative Commons License" and "BSD License". While those temrs make sense to those who deal with licensing in software, I think the meaning would be lost on a lot of users.

I admit I am a bit confused as to why such a large change in the permissions system is needed. It seems that fixing current bugs with permissions, while adding some flexibility (like the ability to transfer a no transfer item back to the creator) and ease at setting/viewing permissions (setting the permissions of all items in an object or folder at once, for example) would be better than throwing out the whole system. The proposed system seems to just add even more layers of complexity and potential for major show stopping bugs, especially during the transition period. I know it is a long ways off and subject to change, but my reaction to it right now is very negative, and I make my SL living selling items with permissions on them.

It should go without saying that if you can't take into consideration the meta-dynamic nature of the world into your design roadmap, by including a healthy budgetary and temporal tolerance into your planning then you are building upon a foundation of luck rather than good planning. To assume everything will be as it is now half a year into the future is folly in real life, and even more so in a place like SL.

I agree that this is frustrating, and that LL should do everything they can to prevent this from happening while continuing to expand our capabilities. However, it is impossible for progress to be made without change. The only way to ensure that everything continues to work exactly as it does now is to freeze the code, stop adding new features, and even stop fixing bugs. I'm sure that nobody wants that.

I'm guessing your project utilizies cutting edge techniques to implement the behavior you want out of it. Unfortunately being cutting edge means you will bleed from time to time, however being cutting edge also is what will attract people to your build.

No, but those incidents can be reduced if we have the foresight and courage to discuss them openly and rationally long before they are implemented. Take note if you did not already that the coming permissions changes are planned for no sooner than 1.7, and that 1.6 is planned for early next year. That should provide more than sufficient time for us to hash out all the concerns and work with LL to come up with solutions to those concerns well before the details are set in stone.

I don't see the new system as more complex, just a different system built on a new foundation. It's percieved complexity is an illusion caused by lack of experience with it. Technically it is much simpler than the current system, and yet offers much more overall flexibility.

The problem is if we keep tacking on little fixes to the existing system without starting from a good solid foundation to begin with, we really will wind up with a much more complicated system, which also contains the legacy problems we've been experiencing all along.

Second Life claims to provide a platform for game designers to build upon. How is that even remotely possible when the foundation, upon which that game is built, changes midstream durring your production period? No amount of "good planning" will ever save a project from disaster when the very base of that foundation changes.

I do not expect SL to stop implementing updates. I would expect the "rushed updates" to at least have provided a learning lesson to LL, especially with how it has impacted the entire system since 1.5 was introduced.

Bleeding edge is right, and I expect to bleed alot more in the very near future.

For me, i hope my existing code defaults to Fully Copyright

But for object (ie builders stuff) the whole "wrapper" things means a lot of copying going on.

If i am going to reverse engineer a product, I cannot take it apart to do so and then sell my version. I must create it only looking at it in an operating condition.

I understand LL wants folks to be able to learn from others, but pay them for their time and effort then.

Just my unpopular 2cents:

Scrap this suggested permissions system, keep the one we have, let dev's make their own licenses, let us make it GPL or invent our own if we want. Don't hard code CC or GPL into the UI. Let the notecard or comments in the script be the license. When we save a script, keep a record of each copy and timestamp it.

When there is a dispute, don't ignore them. Write CSR tools that will tell you instantly who the original creator of the object is. Take a hard line, ban people who lie to you to try and get a script they don't own, ban people who steal scripts. Think about the time it takes to rewrite the entire permission system vs a CSR tool that will get to the root of the issue.

After reading several posts and Cory's blog, the biggest issue I have is the right for the next owner to sell PD objects. No No No!

If I create something (take my Alpine Cabin as an example), I should be allowed to set it so that the new owner can: modify, transfer, but NOT sell it. Another creator should be allowed to set a PD object to: modify, transfer, and sell.. if they want.

Childish temper-tantrums do nothing constructive here Prong. A *discussion* about the benefits and drawbacks of what Cory proposed is what is needed. If it is going to impact you, which is sounds like it *could*, then lay it out for Cory and others to digest and discuss.

I suspect that there are many, many folks in the same position as you, and I'm sure the Lindens are taking that into account. That's why there is an open discussion about it. The last thing they want to do is launch it and have hundreds of pissed of residents whose work is now useless due to the new permissions.

Where to begin... heh.. First of all, this proposal isn't written in stone yet from what I understand however, the general concepts seem to be an inevitable future for us. That being said, I'm going to try to make this as constructive as possible.

Kex, I somewhat disagree with you as far as the new system being simpler. You obviously have a great understanding of the concepts behind the new permissions however I, as a LOT of people out there I'm sure, do not. IMHO, this is going to confuse the hell out of a lot of players, especially newer ones, regardless of what we name the permissions. Comparing to our current system, what could be more simple than saying whether or not this object can be copied, whether it can be transferred, and whether or not you can modify it. The permissions are in plain english, very straightforward.

Next, I honestly don't like the idea of having a breakable wrapper on items. I'm still a little unclear if the wrapper concept is coming from neccessity to align the permissions system with certain licenses or if it's coming from the Lindens desire to create a more openly sharing community. Unfortunately, I don't think the problem of reproduction by inspection is being taken seriously enough. Right now, in a linked unmodifiable objects, a user can only see the values for the root prim AFAIK. I think making a breakable wrapper will just tempt more users to "cross to the darkside". (Sorry... just watched star wars recently.) And being the pessimist that I am, I can already invision the "buying groups" formed to share the cost of more expensive items by buying one and making an exact copy. Off the top of my head I can think of a really easy script you could drop into each prim of an object and instantly have an exact copy without even having to hardly any work. I know this issue was addressed at the TH yesterday but I think Cory misunderstood for the most part as the answer was usually "once you break the wrapper, you can't give it away". The only constructive suggestion I remember from yesterday was to have a feature, whether it be a LSL function or whatever, to where a creator can be IMed when the wrapper is broken. I really don't know what this would do. We can keep records of who all breaks the wrappers so that if we stumble across a copy made by that person we have proof they ripped you off. I just think that this is going to make having an inworld business much more difficult from trying to keep up with copyright infringements which I think will be a LOT more prevalent with the new system.

Also, breaking the wrapper on an object allows the owner to make as many copies as their heart desires. Yes, I know that means they lose their ability to transfer however, this isn't the point. A lot of items are sold as nocopy for a reason, because some people want 10 of item X and some people only need 1. You can then offer item X at a lower price for the person who only needs 1 by having the ability to sell individual copies of the item. With this in mind, I'm also afraid the price of a lot of items in world will go up because sellers know that once people buy one, they have all they need. This would make things less accessible to many, especially new players. I hope I'm wrong on this point or that this won't be too much of a problem but my theory is that everything should be as easy as possible for newer players. This is how the world continues to grow and flourish... by being easy for new people to get involved.

My opinion is that I wish we could think of a way to "encourage" the sharing of knowledge and ideas in world rather than "enforcing" it.

End of the novel for now... I'm out of caffiene.

-Meiyo