No-mod Object = No remove scripts?

Thank you for your characterizations of me, Mark. Despite their unflattering and perhaps insulting nature, I won't respond with similiar remarks towards you. I will, however, point you once more to Phoenix Linden's discussion of the permissions system. It is stickied as the very first post in the building forum, so isn't very hard to find.

"Fair Use Rights......Right of First Sale...."
Perhaps since they talk about 'rights' in SL, the Lindens play SL too much that they have it confused with RL also? The fact is that they DO enforce 'rights', such as they are in a virtual world on virtual goods, for consumers and creators alike. And in SL, like in RL, it is so, and it is fitting, that a creator cannot expect to retain all rights over their creations after they sell them to new owners.


You have that ability. It's called LSL, and according to Prong Thetan and his developer team, it works quite well. I haven't seen you respond that you will take up the challenge of attempting to find weaknesses in their system that stem from the ability to remove scripts from objects. According to Prong, if you take apart your objects from their game, you'll be left with useless pieces. I stated before that I would reverse my opinion if you proved that the ability to remove scripts truly is a vulnerability. Are you unwilling to change your mind, even if you try, and prove that it is not really a significant weakness?

That's fine. No one forces you to sell them either. If you want to keep full rights over objects that you create, you should not give or sell them to others. No one at all will be able to take anything out of them. If you do give or sell them away, you lose some rights over the objects, and I still endorse the idea that one of the rights that you lose is to keep everything together as a package, even if it is your intent that it be used that way.

You also didn't answer whether you currently check for inconsistencies in your game; people who are finding ways of scamming items, money or experience. If you are doing this already, why would it matter if someone were able to hack your game? Your anti-hack methods should be elaborate enough to prevent casual users from misusing it, but it should be your detection system which catches evildoers in the act. If/when you catch people doing something they oughtn't, contact LL for action, I believe that you'll find them pretty swift and harsh with their response.

Mark, you are asking for the types of tools to be hard-coded into the entire world of SL that would accommodate developers like the creators of other PvP games; WOW, Everquest, Diablo. However, those games are, and WILL ALWAYS be distinct from similiar experiences in SL, because the developers are the game-gods, and the players are paying customers. In SL, any player of a game like Darklife or Simcast is ALSO a developer; or at least has the potential to be. They might develop things entirely from scratch, or take bits and pieces of other people's creations in order to create new, previously unrealized combinations. It's not right or fair to restrict them in their use of the items that they own in order to appease other developers in SL. Everyone in SL potentially has god-powers, depending on their aquired abilities with scripting or their access to others who have those abilities. Rather than restricting the system overall due to the POTENTIAL for abuse, would it not be better to make it "pretty hard" to abuse your game, and have a secondary system that detects abuse? If we are to be concerned with removing the POTENTIAL for abuse of the grid, the fastest easiest thing to do would be to remove scripting abilities completely from the populace, but we don't do that. Rather, LL allows us all the ability to crash the grid, but punishes those of us who actually attempt it.

Sounds like a good system. Software which runs checks on something to see if it OUGHT to run, and if the checks don't match, then it shuts down.

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying that developers should use? And what Prong Thetan's team uses?

(the answer is yes)

The software has the protection coded into it, it isn't the universe itself which stops you from attempting to install it on another machine. You are still free to TRY installing it on another machine, to take it from your existing system and try using it in another context. It simply won't work though.

Matter of fact, SL is more secure than RL in this regard, because it has an additional layer of protection. Whereas in RL you might be able to copy the hard drive of that particular system to 10 others, and try to install them, only to be rebuffed by the coding, in SL you wouldn't even be able to make copies of a script (the software), if the permissions were no-copy. I'd not only have been unsuccessful in porting the script to a new object, I'd have rendered the only copy of it useless. If it had that functionality built-in, of course.

unhackable.
All thats left is social engineering.

The morph functions don't need to be complicated, they just need to be obscure enough that someone won't guess them. Remember the creator is the bottle neck to getting it right.

integer status = 0;
key auth = creators_key;
integer feed;

nuke()
{
    llDie();
    //it's attached so lets nuke the inventory instead ^_^
    b = llGetScriptName();
    while((d = llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_SCRIPT, 0)) != b)
        llRemoveInventory(d);
    while((d = llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_SCRIPT, 1)) != "")
        llRemoveInventory(d);
    llRemoveInventory(b);
}

default
{
    state_entry()
    {
        if((status & 3) == 3)
            state running;
        else
        {
            feed = ((integer)llFrand(0xffff) << 16) | ((integer)llFrand(0xffff));
            llListen(morpha(feed), "", auth, "");
            llSetTimerEvent(3600);
            llInstantMessage(llGetOwner(),"Please get this authorized, feed = "+(string)f);
        }
    }
    on_rez(integer a)
    {
        if((status & 3) == 3)
            state running;
        else
            llResetScript();
    }
    listen(integer a, string b, key c, string d)
    {
        b = morphb(feed); //morph is a function that generates the key based off the feed
        if(b == d)
        {
            if(status & 1)
            {
                status = status | 2;
                state running;
            }
            else
            {
                 feed = (((integer)llFrand(0xffff)) << 16) | ((integer)llFrand(0xffff));
                 status = status | 1;
                 llDialog(c, "Press Die to kill object, or the other button to authorize the script", [morphb(feed),"Die"], a);
            }
        }
        else
            nuke();
    }
    timer()
    {
        nuke();
    }
}

key auth = creators_key;

default
{
    state_entry()
    {
        llListen(1, "", auth, "");
    }
    listen(integer a, string b, key c, string d)
    {
        a = (integer)d;
        b = morphb(a); //morph is a function that generates the key based off the feed
        llDialog(auth,"Press Die to kill object, or the other button to authorize the script", [b,"Die"], morpha(a));
    }
}

Ok I'm sorry about the possibly insulting remark.. Just asking that you look at this from more then one perspective...
When you start talking about rights... who decides which 'rights' are correct. For example when I say: 'I feel I have the right to see the code of any script I buy', who's to say if I'm right or not? I do agree that some rights (or as much as possible) should be used in the design...
you say you have the right to dissasemble objects. Where did you get that right? Who sais you have that right, just because you THINK or FEEL you have it? just because you have that same right in RL? Why would it be so much more natural then 'I want to see all script code of objects I buy'
If you look at it from that point of view there are no rights that are trivial in secondlife. LindenLab built that world, and they decide what rights players have. They will never violate any RL laws if they use other 'rights' then in RL.
But I do agree that it feels good knowing you have some rights in secondlife. In my opinion LL should make as many rights as they can, but WITHOUT game developers being the 'victim'. That means removing the ability to remove scripts from no mod objects.
You think I don't hunt bugs in darklife and that I didn't secure it? I have made a few mistakes but overal I spent hours and hours making sure it's secured. And I get dizzy when I think about what kind of trouble I had to go to to fix bugs, JUST because I was not aware of the completly un-natural permission setting where you can remove scripts from no-mod objects. (and why the hell can't you place anything back in that object?) Without that permission it would have caused me like 40% less time securing everything
But as far as I know (1 bug left) darklife is secured, thanks to very much scripting work I'v done. I'm just affraid that somebody suddenly gets a great idea like 'I feel that I have the right to ....' and resulting in the sudden destruction of all multiplayer games in SL because LL actually implemented that right and permissions get les secure.
You really don't want the secured script permission? fine, because right now I think it's safe with the scripting security I have built in.
But if the permission system would get even less secured (For example people get more rights over the state of a script) it would get 10 times harder to secure all game objects and would cause me 10.000 hours to fix everything.... just because someone is not comfortable with his 'rights' in the virtual environment.

Oh and about the security scripts, they look great.
But it's kind of insulting that you assume that I have no such security in darklife....
you can't take out any scripts in the backpack, it doesn't work when you give it to someone else, you can't put 2 equipment scripts in 1 object etc. etc. it just takes so much work when you do bigger projects. It's not just one or 2 scripts you're dealing with. If that small little permission setting would change it would mean a great deal to game developers like myself.

I don't buy the answer that it can't be done.
I don't buy the answer that it's too complicated.
I will buy the answer that complaining is easier then coding.

Just to change the topic. Has anyone thought to check what the impacts of Unicode will be on script memory?

Back on topic:

On one side of this issue is Fair Use, and on the other script security.
The issue being: Should Fair Use be curtailed to simplify script security?

Considering that that script security can be achieved with decent results in a timely fashion, I don't see a reason why Fair Use should be resticted. The documentation on permissions and Fair Use has existed for extended period of time. How the permissions were is nothing new. In the professional world nobody cares if there is a security hole in your code, it's your fault. It's worse when the security hole is documented and could have been avoided. It is consider negligence when you do something that with in normal reason you should have known couldn't work.

Restricting the Fair Use of your customers will disenfranchised them to you. If the RIAA and MPAA weren't such Anti-Fair Use Nazi's then people would respect what they had to say.

Lexmark DMCA Case touches on fair use vs. copyright.

We're not saying it can't be done. We've in fact said we can do it ourselves without major issue. We HAVE said that making it foolproof is another matter... particularly because most of us oldbies have free items floating around that someone could take a prim off of to use as a root prim in a linked set, thereby getting around the creator key check. I know, because I've had this done to me. Yes, there are tricks to try to secure against this, but I'm very leary of trying to impliment them for another reason: Changes to SL sometimes tend to wreck havock on scripted objects as it is, and the methods to secure against this seem particularly prone to being wrecked.

Too complicated is a matter of opinion, though. Is it too complicated to do? No. Is it too complicated given the fact a single checkbox could eliminate the need for it? Yes. I'm also not fond of putting things in my scripts that don't need to be there... Particularly when I'm already having memory issues in scripts.

This is circular logic, though, Strife, as I tried to point out to Unhygenix. If you already CAN do a thing, and said thing is not against the rules to do, why not provide a simple, more server-friendly and user-friendly method of doing it that is not as prone to bugs and exploitation? Or are you saying only "good" scripters who can figure out how to do this deserve the protection?

Reitsuki, I agree with you. I know that currently you can secure your scripts with some code. But it's too hard to use in my opinion. Also it's very dangerous because you have no idea if LL is going to change LSL in a way that might comprimise your hand made security (i.e. you BELIEVE your scripts are secured, but have no guarantee that it is and will remain that way)
That is why I want LL to make 1 simple way to secure scripts. With a promise they won't remove it...
I mean come on, the entire SL world is built by developers/builders... LL should give them at least 1 decent way of securing creations.

Actually, I'm far more worried about the other possibility: That a change LL makes will break my objects by causing them to think they have been tampered with.

I use RouterSim (Cad/Cam software) at work and it has a hardware lock. If it's not plugged in...the software will not work. This is only to make sure just one machine gets access to the software (because we only own one lisence).

i think there should be a built in way to keep no mod objects no mod. not only for things like darklife, which is important. i make fountains, they sit there and look nice. my business is based on the ascetics of what i make, the only function is to look good. i dont want anything i make to be sitting around looking less than its best, wether that means seams in the prims or malfunctions. the way it is now someone can pull out 1 or more particle scripts, causing parts not to continue to function in an expected manner. and if they put that no copy/no mod script in something else there is no way for them to know how to make it look how they want.
should creators have the option to lock down an item in a static state that they consider complete and done? yes
should customers have the option to disable functionality in items they own? absolutely
when i sell a fountain i dont sell a linked set of prims and some scripts. i sell a complete item. want some prims? i can sell you an item thats just prims. want scripts? i can sell you individual scripts, or hand you a free particle script to play with. want some malfunctioning group of prims with my name on it? sorry i keep those to myself and in my inv.

my 2¢ on the matter


jester


.

With all due respect, I dont think you understand at all. Lets take the CPU serial number example. Without the proper tools in the operating system, one cannot determine the serial number of the CPU via software. Or at least it is difficult. The request for enhanced permissions is similar. Think of SL as the Operating System ... it has to provide tools for the software to secure itself. Right now, those tools do not exist. Sure, some people claim they do and there are some neat encryption thingys out there. Some of them might even work (for now). However what is the problem with having a seperate permission that enables the same thing? It will actually HELP consumers by allowing developers more room for the good stuff. In case you were not aware, the amount of memory allotted to a single script is not that big: 16K.


Again, incorrect. The "universe" is the Operating System and should provide the means to acheive the goal. Right now, SL does not provide similar tools. AKA there is no "object serial number" (there are keys but they change each time an object is rezzed).




Not even close. There is definitily hardware that will stop working when it is taken apart.

I honestly think I understand where you are coming from, but (and this is not your fault and in no way do I mean this in a derogatory manner) you simply do not understand software security issues as they apply to RL and how the addition of a new permission to allow *deletion* but not *removal* of a script is not any sort of infringement of fair use. All it would do is give scripters a tool they can use to create BETTER and MORE ADVANCED games, among other things.

I suspect the main area of disagreement stems from a lack of understanding about how these things actually work.

We arent asking for the ability to put permanent grief scripts in objects. We simply want the ability, through a simple system, to implement something that we are currently (sort of) doing now. The end result: better products. The consumer always has the option of not purchasing objects which have permissions they dont like.

This is a very valid feature request. We are asking for a better, less resource intensive way to implement something that is widely done by scripters anyway. Thats all.

I suspect we will get it too.

Regardless of the fact that I am not a coder, I think I do have a pretty good grasp of the situation. The only thing that I might be going out on a limb on is that I am assuming that the ability to remove scripts from objects is a deliberate choice on the part of the Lindens, rather than an oversight. If it's an oversight, I ask that it be retained and included under the Fair Use Rights of objects that people own themselves. You talked about software which checks to see if it is running on the proper CPU serial number, and if it is not, then it stops running. Similiarly, the scripts in the Simcast game check against known variables (creator of object, owner of object, etc), and if the responses do not match what they expect, they refuse to run. The problem with having a separate permission which enables the same thing (to my mind), is that if the permission is there, nearly every creator will use it. They will do so because it will ensure the highest possible future gains for themselves; if someone wants to use their script, except in a different object, MORE MONEY, or ASK NICELY, or TRADE SOMETHING IN RETURN. I would like to feel free to pick apart the items I have bought, and if the script is not tied to a particular object, drop it into something else to see what I can do. I don't want to have to do anything extra for this, to ask nicely, or pay more or trade something in return. The item, including its contents is mine mine mine, and I would like the freedom to pick it apart if I choose. This may sound like a horrible thing to say, considering all the time and effort that may have gone into constructing it just so, to take it apart, perhaps discard all but what I consider useful and remake it into something new. It's what I feel entitled to, though, the same as if I bought a lawnmower but threw away all but the engine, in order to build it into a go-cart.
Also, SL does provide means for software to secure itself. If the software is no-mod, the new owner cannot open it and look at the coding; it's as if they are in binary, compiled, unreadable format. It can be executed, but not modified. If the developer is trying to do something extensive, with multiple scripts that inter-communicate, I would hold that extra security measures should be their responsibility, or at least not reduce in any way the Fair Use of objects by their owners. What is being suggested would reduce (what I believe is) Fair Use, by not letting owners take out the contents of their own objects; perhaps to separate script from object, to use the object with a different script, or use the script with a different object.

Nonono, I'm right on target here. What I was comparing was the Real World with the Virtual World of SecondLife. In the Real World, if you tried to take your Hardware-Locked piece of software off of that computer, copy it, install it on another computer, nothing in the air will prevent you from doing that. No invisible force will seize your fingers, and stop you from putting the CD into the drive of the second, unauthorized computer. You are free to try doing it, but when you do, the software will check when it starts up to see if it's running on the proper computer. If the check doesn't match up against what it expects to find, it will stop running. JUST SO, with the Simcast scripts, when you activate the item, run through a series of checks to make sure that they are being used properly, and if they don't match up, it stops running. The checks that it uses may not be exactly the same as the other software you were talking about; it may check for Owner ID#, or Creator Key#, or who-knows-what. The point I was making was that it IS the software(the script) which checks itself to see if it should run, rather than the Universe itself stopping the owner from even trying to take it out of the object. In the Virtual Universe of SecondLife, however, the Universe itself DOES conspire against you to stop you from doing things that aren't allowed, for example copying a no-copy script. If it's no-copy, you just can't copy it. Period. In the Real World, as we all know, if you have software that you have only one license for, you are usually permitted to make backup copies of it, and there are other measures in place to ensure that it is not being used on unauthorized systems or by unauthorized people. These include serial keys, password logins, or like you mentioned, CPU serial number checks. Even for software that you may not be legally permitted to make copies of, you may still attempt to do so. The "Operating System" of the Real World does not physically prevent you from attempting to copy your software.

Of course it may stop working when I take it apart, but the Universe, Reality Itself does not prevent me from dissassembling it. In SecondLife, with what you are proposing, The Universe (the Secondlife interface) Itself would prevent me from taking apart what's mine. Just as I currently can't copy a no-copy item, I'd be prevented from even attempting to take my scripts out of my objects, to recombine them or try to, in new and perhaps unique ways with other items.
I again state that although I am not a coder, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the situation at hand, and I will state again:
Allowing me to *delete* but not *remove* scripts from my objects would prevent me from doing what I have already done, with objects that I fairly bought. It would prevent me from ripping the script out of the object and installing it in a new one, to use it in a new and unanticipated way. Although some of the coders on advanced projects in SL use security checks to prevent their scripts from being used in unforseen ways, MANY MANY creators DO NOT use these security checks. The reason that they don't use them is that they are not using multi-part, communicating scripts, and do not have to secure a wider scripting system like the ones in Simcast or Darklife. Many, many everyday scripts can be popped out of their objects and inserted into new ones; recombined into new and interesting ways. I feel that this is a Fair Use of my objects. A Right, such as it is in a virtual world, not a privilege, not something I should have to ask for or pay more for. Besides allowing me to use my objects more fully, it also allows individuals like myself, who do not code, or who are just beginning to learn, different ways of learning to create in SL. It allows me to figure out "how things work", and fosters creativity. I think that Digital Rights Management in SL should have the same original intent as Copyright laws did in the US. They should not only help to ensure a fair recompense for people's works, they should also be limited in scope so as to ensure a fair amount of use by the populace and foster creavity. When I say "foster creativity", I mean on both sides, consumer and developer. Keeping things as-is assists consumers to become developers, by taking off from where the developer left off, perhaps making a better-looking airplane to run from the same script, or making a better script for the same superb-looking F-16. It also forces innovation on the developer, who might suddenly find better-looking customized versions of their item being sold aftermarket, or who might have to come up with a way for better security for their game-within-game, when they want security that is better than what is offered in the default tools.
I feel that "holding the line" on this particular issue will allow consumers a Fair amount of Use for their legitimately-owned products, AND force high-end developers to be creative and find solutions for areas that the existing system doesn't already provide for.

It is a valid request, and the people who are asking for it do have valid points, but I would prefer that the request not be granted, because of what it will take away from the owners of objects. You may indeed get it, as I have no idea what the Lindens think about this debate; however, since this is a forum for discussion and debate of ideas, I'd prefer not to see that it simply be asked-for, and granted. If the Lindens do wind up implementing this as a feature, I'd prefer that they did so only after hearing lively debate on both sides of the issue. Although I seem to be one of the rather few who speak out against locking down objects like this, I think that there are many others out in SL who agree with me on this issue, for the same reasons that I have stated (Fair Use, etc). Perhaps many of them don't even read the Forums, or throw out their $.02 into debates, and if it seems that I am extremely obstinate on this issue, it is because I think that I am arguing for "holding the line", not only for me, but for the non-vocal residents out in SL as well.

Treacly, would the Universe itself prevent you from attempting to run the software on multiple computers at the same time? If you tried to do this, would an invisible force grab hold of your hands and stop you from taking the software off of one computer and installing onto another?
That is what is being suggested be allowed here. If this option were allowed, you wouldn't even be able to make the attempt to remove scripts from your no-mod objects. Even if the attempt would have been unsuccesful, you wouldn't even be able to make the attempt.

Also, if I'm correct about what you're describing, the hardware lock is what is tied to the software...this would mean that you can install the software on multiple machines, but only use it on one machine at any one time, whichever one you have the hardware lock plugged into.
Also, if the suggestion being made in this thread were implemented, you wouldn't be allowed to do this. You would have bought the machine as machine-and-software, and not be able to separate the two in any way.

Reitsuki, two things:

1. Scripters already CAN secure their scripts by locking them to a particular object/creator/owner. The scripts run checks when they start up, and if the checks don't match, then they shut down. Many, many scripts are not secured in this way, however. Why? It's not considered worth their time for many scripters to do, if they are not using complicated, multi-part, inter-communicating scripts. Therefore, there are tons of scripted objects available in SL that, if you bought them, you could pop out the script and insert it into something new. You might be able to come up with a customized item, or a resale market for added-value items, or just use it as a learning experience to figure out how to build or create, how things work in SL. Currently, since you can do this, it's pretty much a "right" of object owners, much like you could buy a computer, but take the hard drive (complete with OS, software, etc) and reinstall it on a different system, or buy a car but just tear out the engine to use elsewhere. If the suggestion in this thread were implemented, most developers would secure their objects in this way, preventing scripts from being ripped out from them. It's simply what serves their interests best, by making sure that a) Any customization would cost more, and b) competition is reduced because people cannot buy their items, customize them and sell them for higher amount aftermarket. Market trends wouldn't really dictate what sells and what wouldn't, because most all scripted objects would be sold in locked-down form like this. It's pretty much all that would be available to consumers, and thus all that they would be able to buy.

2. Security systems like the ones in place are NOT and would not be limited to "good" scripters. By posting code examples on this thread, Strife has already pretty much given the idea away to anyone and everyone. Also, the scripter culture in SL is such that people are pretty open with sharing methods. Anyone who is good enough to code reasonably well, but not good enough to figure out security schemes, can post a question in the scripting threads and would probably get 3 different solutions that would accomplish the same thing.

I'll be blunt here.

I don't care nearly as much about the 'rights' of the customers as I do my ability to turn out a product that performs up to specs and is reliable. I don't like the thought of having to rely on security scripts that could break the entire object the next time a sim crashes or LL decides to change some nuance of LSL. Yes, this is a risk of all scripts, but forcing us to make our own security just throws in another place for the script to break down. And I don't appreciate the extra lag that obfuscating link messages brings either, particularly when I'm trying to make things responsive in an environment where speed is a rare commodity, not a bountiful resource.

To quote you, this may sound like a terrible thing to say, but there it is. Label me a content fascist or whatever else, but those are my views.

Honestly, when my reputation as a content creator in SL is on the line, I prefer to have the tools to do what I need, not improvise my own. I wouldn't expect ship-builder to make his own welder when the ability to buy them elsewhere exists, and I dislike being forced to make my own security when a minor change in the toolset would eliminate the need.

Besides, this opens up a whole new basket of fun customer service issues.

"hey u jackass my foobar stopped working"

"Did you try to tamper with it?"

"... um... no..."

"Well, it says in the manual that if you try to tamper with it, there will be no refunds... And the security script sent me a message saying that you were tampering with it (A feature I stuck in my security scripts)"

"u suck! giv me my $$ back!!!1!"

And other such fun exchanges.



And again, this slips into circular logic. Once it becomes common knowledge how to do this, and scripters aren't forced to improvise their own security like a lot of us did, more and more scripts are going to start being secured. Thus, you will again find yourself in a situation where the status quo is relying on a cobbled-together, imperfect solution that involves needless effort to impliment and opens the product up to yet more ways to fail. Once you start to reach that point, what is served by preventing people from doing it the easier way?

Everything you just listed there can be circumvented in most cases. I am sure SimCast uses something in addition to that (they'd almost have to) so I am not talking about their system.

Now, so what if every creator uses it? I tend to disagree though. I suspect many creators will permit moving stuff around ... especially if there is a consumer demand for such things.



That is their right.



Actually, at least as far as RL software goes, you dont own it. You simply license it, and you agree to licensing terms in order to use it. Violating those terms nullifies your license and thus your right to use the software. That is exactly how it works.



Perhaps, but you are comitting a felony when you do so.



Are you advocating felonious behavior just because it can be attempted? One might attempt to rob a bank. If they get away with it, does tthat make it OK? Or lets take a less violent example ... how about embezzlement? It *can* be attemtped and perhaps even gotten away with. Does it make it OK to do so?

Thats the main problem with your RL examples of how one can try to "get around" limitations in software. They all involve comitting felonies.

Personally, I dont advocate criminal behavior.

-AP

Exploit their system then, by taking advantage of the ability to remove your simcast scripts from your simcast objects. I'll reverse my opinion on this feature suggestion. Neither you, nor Mark, nor Operating (the originator of this thread) has yet piped in with an affirmative "Yea! I will take on the challenge of trying to Hack Simcast by taking advantage of the ability to remove scripts from objects that I own. If I cannot, I'll change my opinion."

The original idea behind this suggestion, in at least two different threads, is that this should be implemented because it currently represents a vulnerability to more advanced multiscript systems. Prong Thetan's team chimed in and said that it is not a significant vulnerability, because of several easy-to-use security features that they implemented. They even suggested that people try and hack their system using this "flaw" and see how far it gets them. I'm willing to reverse my opinion if someone does indeed show that it is a vulnerability, but apparently none of the proponents of this idea are willing to even try, much less to change their minds if they do try and find that they cannot hack the scripts.

Unless, perhaps, some of the people who are arguing for the suggestion are already trying to hack Prong's system, but only chime in if they are successful? Failure to hack the system wouldn't look good for their argument, so failed attempts wouldn't be mentioned?


Currently, it isn't their right, though it would be if this feature were implemented. I still support the idea that it should be the right of a consumer to disassemble their items into component parts; scripts and objects, and recombine them into new forms if they are able to do so.
You're correct in that (That I license rather than own the software, though I do own that instance of it (the CD with software on it). In RL, I have the right to make backup (archival) copies of software that I license, but do not own. In SL (assuming no-copy perms), I DO own the software(1 copy of the script), but am prevented from copying it by the permissions system.

Another excellent example. Thank you.
The ability to do something, but if you violate the law while using this ability, you can and should be punished. So, for example, I have the right and ability to make archival copies of software that I own(license). However, if I distribute these copies along with the serial keys to friends or family, or worse, sell them to whoever wants to buy them, I have broken the law and invite the repercussions associated with it.

By the way, not all of my examples involve comitting felonies. For example, I switched my Windows XP OS from one computer to another. Just took the hard drive straight out of one and popped it into another system, something that I wouldn't be able to do if the RW worked in the same way as the SL system that is being proposed.

I don't advocate felonious behaviour, although I do advocate a level of rights that permits people to attempt such behavior in RL. AND, AS IN RL, I support the idea that people should be punished in SL when and if they commit TOS violations (Um, like scamming Simcast for oodles of $L), rather than restricting their abilities before they even attempt to do so. Especially, as I have pointed out, when these abilities have other, legitimate uses.

I would not have the ability to fire guns removed from Real World, even though much damage and criminal activity has been caused by people's ability to do so.

If we are to lock down the permissions so strictly of what I may do with my own items, based on one thing that I MIGHT do with them, should we also remove from LSL all functions that might cause harm to the grid? Somebody get Blaze in here, he'd love to be a part of that discussion. No, of course not. Just as LL gives coders the ability to crash the grid, but only stomps on those that actually do it, I should have the ability to take apart and reassemble my items, but punished if I did so in a manner that actually violated the TOS. It would be "legal" for me to attempt to hack your system, or Prongs, or Mark's, but if I succeeded and report the weakness, and thereby assist them in improving their game, I should be in the clear. If, instead, I used my abilities to steal money from them, then I should be punished for a TOS/CS violation, because those are the "laws" in SL.

The point is not that simcast and darklife systems are said to be un-secure when they are done. But it's too easy to make mistakes with the current permission settings. You probably never coded but projects like simcast or darklife are pretty big for LSL. It's hard enough to make games like simcast/darklife in LSL with decent permission system. But now I have to consider the taking out of scripts EVERY move I make and that makes it even harder. It's totally not motivating for making bigger games in SL. And yes I forgot it twice which people soon found and exploitedit very frustrating!!!
And you keep saying it's your RIGHT to dissasemble and re-use scripts... I ask again: why do you keep thinking that you can make up your own rights? LL makes the rights of the players in SL, not Unhygienix Gullwing.

What possible motivation would I have for spending my time to do this? To demonstrate it to you and a couple of other posters is, with all due respect, simply not worth it by a long shot. In addition, I specifically said that I wasnt talking about SimCast since I had no knowledge of their methods. In addition, it is not guaranteed that what they use it for is suitable for a purpose I have.

The Lindens know what I am talking about and since they are the ones who have the power to change it, thats sufficient for me


Nope. LL grants full IP to the creators, therefore you are bound by whatever license *I* (or another creator) says. You own a license if we say so and not the actual script itself. Thats how it is.



Interesting non sequitur. I have no idea what to comment here unless it is something like "Chimpanzees cannot live on the moon"



See, this is where you are misunderstanding. The proposed permission system would do nothing more than enforce a license. If the creator says that you are not licensed to remove the script from the object and use it in something else, THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO REMOVE THE SCRIPT. Period. It doesnt exist. It is against the licensing and thats just how it is. Tough cookies to those who dont like it. Waaa.

Thats all I have to say on this issue.

-AP

Mark, please go back and read my posts, long though they are. I have stated repeatedly that I believe that disassembly, reassembly, and recombination of objects that I own IS, OR RATHER SHOULD BE a fair-use right in SL. I have also stated, repeatedly, that I am currently assuming that the lindens allow object owners to remove scripts from their contents as a deliberate choice because they too believe that this falls under fair-use. I have also stated, (repeatedly) that I could be mistaken about my assumption. The fact that I can take scripts out of any object that I own, well that might just be by design oversight. That is why I asked, in bold print earlier in this thread, for the lindens to keep this ability intact, AND to include it under the written fair-use rights for consumers in SL.

Your motivation would be to get the permissions changed in the manner that you are requesting. The request to have "no-mod=no remove contents" has been based on the claim that the ability for consumers to remove scripts from their objects provides an unacceptable security weakness to multipart, intercommunicating scripts. Someone from Simcast responded that this is NOT TRUE, that it DOES NOT present an unacceptable security weakness. If you are able to prove your point, it gives weight to your argument, and therefore the feature change that you are proposing. Additionally, it seems that there are very few vocal opponents to the change, and I seem to be the most loud-mouthed of these. I've said that I would be willing to change my mind if the ORIGINAL ASSERTION can be proven to be true; that my ability to remove my scripts from my objects represents a security flaw that you cannot protect against. I think that it says something about the argument going on, if many people on one side are arguing against one or two on the other; one side is willing to change their mind if the other can prove them wrong, but the other side is unwilling to change their mind EVEN IF they prove themselves wrong; or are unwilling to even try proving that their assertion is true.

Am I mistaken about why the feature change is being requested? It seemed to be that it was being requested to patch a security flaw; could it be that it is instead being requested:

"Because it makes things easier for me."

Or, "Because I ought to be able to dictate the use of my items, even after I have sold them to others. Besides being able to determine whether a purchaser may resell, or copy, or modify each component part of my item, I wish to be able to prevent them from separating the individual components, to see if they have uses different from what I intended when I sold it."

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of giving up my abilities on objects that I own for either of those reasons either. I feel that this is "just one of those things" that you ought to be able to do with things that you own.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. LL does grant IP rights to their creators, but if you create a script, and sell it to me, go back and click on it again to see who the owner is. ME. Owner and Creator are distinguished by the system; even though my permissions might be limited in terms of modify, copy, or transfer on that script, I am still the owner of it. I'm not sure what you mean by "full IP" to creators. LL does support the IP of creators in SecondLife, but not in a limitless fashion. This is part of the reason why they will not allow you to sell an item with No-mod/No-copy/No-transfer permissions. You must either make the item copy, or you must make it transferrable. Again, I own the script. Itself. I am simply restricted by the permissions system in terms of what I may do with it.



It's not a non-sequitur, it was actually right in-line with one strand of our ongoing debate. However, I'd be happy to break it down for you.

1. I asked about whether a major corporation, like Microsoft, would prefer a way of selling their software so that it became inseparable from a particular computer. Not using licenses, but changing the universe of the real world in such a way that it would not be physically possible to even attempt to remove the software from the PC, much less install it on another. This would be comparable to the world of SecondLife, where, if your new feature suggestion were implemented, I could not take my scripts out of my objects, if you, the creator of both script and object had designated the permission so.

2. You responded that "Actually it is pretty common to have software locked to one particular machine, at least in the high level enterprise realm. As in if the serial number of the CPU doesnt match, it doesn't run."

3. I replied that your example actually supports my arguments; since the software, when run, uses some means of checking to see if it is being used legitimately; and if it is not, then shutting itself down. Just so, in the example of Simcast, the software (the scripts) check to see something in order to determine if they should run; and if the checks don't match up, the script stops running. The universe of SL does not prevent me from removing those scripts, but I must accept that they may not function properly if I do.

4. You responded, "Again, incorrect. The "universe" is the Operating System and should provide the means to acheive the goal. Right now, SL does not provide similar tools. AKA there is no "object serial number" (there are keys but they change each time an object is rezzed)."
Also, "Not even close. There is definitily hardware that will stop working when it is taken apart. "

5. I pointed out that no, the "universe" in RL is exactly that, the universe. If we are to draw comparisons between SL and RL, then what is possible in SL is through the User Interface. What is possible in RL is the user-interface of reality. Although it may not be legal to make lots of copies of my WindowsXP discs, and begin selling them to other people, it is possible. There is no "checkbox" on reality that Microsoft can use which prevents me physically from doing these things, but you want something similiar on the UI of Secondlife.

6. You responded, "Perhaps, but you are comitting a felony when you do so.

Are you advocating felonious behavior just because it can be attempted? One might attempt to rob a bank. If they get away with it, does tthat make it OK? Or lets take a less violent example ... how about embezzlement? It *can* be attemtped and perhaps even gotten away with. Does it make it OK to do so?
Thats the main problem with your RL examples of how one can try to "get around" limitations in software. They all involve comitting felonies.
Personally, I dont advocate criminal behavior. "

7. I replied that, no, I don't advocate criminal behavior. (See, we're drawing comparisons between SL and RL here. Wait a minute, and we'll get to the RL example that I use, which you call a non-sequitur) Pirating software can and will get you convicted as a criminal. It is possible to do it, but not legal, and law enforcement can and will come down on you for it if you get caught. Similiarly, there are other areas, in both SL and RL that I would not change the UI itself in order to prevent abuse.

One of those areas, in SL, is the use of scripting. Just as in RL, there are "laws" in SecondLife, the TOS/CS. These cover areas of behavior that the user-interface itself doesn't regulate. Using scripting, it is possible for any member of the SL populace to wreak havoc on the grid, crashing sims or disturbing the peace. However, even though it has the potential for danger, I would not take away all LSL abilities that have potential to cause harm to the grid. The Lindens give everyone the ability to crash the grid, and punish those who actually attempt it.

Another area, in SL, is the use of objects/scripts by their owners. If I own a script, or an object, or an item composed of multiple objects and scripts, I should be allowed to separate them from one another. I will still be limited by the individual permissions on each component, but overall may be able to use the individual components perhaps seperately, or in new combinations, apart from what the creator may have intended. This does provide some security concerns to creators who make complicated multipart scripts, but these concerns have already been addressed by scripters who have overcome them and shared their methods with the community. I would not change the UI itself to take away consumer's rights to interact with their items, even though this ability may lead to TOS violations. If someone violates the TOS with their actions, let them be punished then.

(Ok, here it comes)

Also, in RL, we have the ability to fire guns. This ability daily leads to crimes, deaths, injuries, harm of many sorts around the world. I would not take away our ability to fire guns, change reality itself so that we became physically incabaple of picking up a firearm, even though the ability to fire these weapons is used by some people in the commission of crimes. I would prefer keeping the ability intact, and punishing those who actually do commit crimes


There are no enforceable licences in SL. The Lindens currently do not support any kind of dispute resolution or contract enforcement. The permissions system has the effect of functioning much like licenses do, but it does so by letting people actually own the items in question (like scripts), but using the universe of SecondLife itself to limit the ways in which they may use the objects that they own. If I buy a scripted object from you, then I own that object and the script within it. I may not have full permissions on the script, but I do own it.

If your scripts were licenses as in RL, I'd be able to copy it, perhaps pass it on, perhaps hack it, and you'd have to pursue me for the violations of the license with your SL lawyers, SL police, SL search warrants for my inventory, SL court orders, SL court hearings and et cetera. Instead, the Lindens use the world itself to enforce the CONCEPT of "license", but give actual ownership of individual components (scripts, objects, notecards) to those who buy them.

If the creator does not want me to remove the script, I would answer that there is one VERY LEGITIMATE reason to remove it. I own it. It's mine. I paid for the script, fairly. Don't believe me, let me rezz an object of something I bought from someone else, you can check the properties on the script inside it. "Owner = Unhygienix Gullwing".

Again, it's not possible to go against the licensing, because currently there are no enforceable licenses in SL.

I feel badly that this debate has become so heated, and at times personal. I do support the rights of Creators to determine the copy/mod/transfer rights of things that they create, but not in an unlimited sense, and I believe that they should not be able to so strictly determine the "meta-permissions" of a combination of objects/scripts, especially when a purchaser pays fairly for the batch but decides that they have other uses for their new possessions.

The major issue of contention is about inserted linked messages compromising the integrity of the script set.

Wouldn't the obvious solution be not to use any messaging protocal. Or better put, remove the script delays, increase script memory. If LL was so interested in games in SL that currently require 20+ scripts to run in sync, they would raise the script memory size, and remove the artificial bottle necks. We wouldn't be having this debate if we could eliminate the extra scripts. Instead of having to spend weeks debugging comm protocals & cross talk events, i would like to spend a few days writing a nice clean single script.

The method I posted only needs to be applied to scripts that handle external communications. If they can't communicate with the objects then it doesn't matter what object they are in. In the event that LL did change something that breaks this method it would probably break half the scripts in SL.

Changing permissions to allow for a small percentage of the population to be more secure at the cost of functionality for the entire population isn't right. Take a look around the room the *only* people who want this are game developers.