No modrights should *not* allow script dragging

If I build something with a script and do not give it mod rights and sell it, someone *should not* be able to drag the script from object onto another one.

Thanks to Evil Fool for pointing this out to me.

lLGetCreator is useless because someone could just drag the script onto an object that they create.

Agreed!!

Removing this feature would destroy my business plan. I sell scripts, usually in a simple object to demonstrate them. I want my customers to be able to use the scripts in their own objects.

Give the demo objects mod?

-Adam

Adam,

I'm not sre how that would help? I suppose that would allow ppl to change the original object into something else.

But that would still prevent them from using my script in an object they got from elsewhere. Which is, I think, what Blaze wants to stop.

No no no.

An object without the 'mod' box checked should NOT be able to be modified in ANY way. Period.

An object with the 'mod' box checked SHOULD be able to be modified, including removing scripts.

Simply create your object, mark it as modable, and mark the script as copyable. Then they can drag the script out into wherever they want, including their inventory, but they won't be able to change the script (unless you have the SCRIPT marked as mod as well).

At least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. Right now, it doesn't matter if an object is marked as mod or not, they can still remove the script. Personally, I don't want my scripts stolen if the object they're in is no-mod. That's why they're no-mod.

Moleculor,

AH, I see, my apologies. I didnt know that scripts could be taken from an object that was not modifiable.

Plus I read Blaze's orginal post as saying that he had made the script non-mod, not the object.

So is this a bug?

This is definitely a bug.

Agree with thread title.

Im in support of this.
==Chris

This should probably be in feature suggestions or somewhere but since it is in the scripting forum I will offer a potential work around.

If you know your own key (easy to get with llDetectedKey()/llGetOwner()/llGetCreator()) then add the following function to your script and call it in state_entry and on_rez.

secureIt()
{
    if (llGetCreator() != "put-your-key-here")
    {
        llWhisper(0,"Sorry this script only works in objects created by [your name]");
        llRemoveInventory(llGetScriptName());
    }
}

Well, it's not just llGetCreator. It's also if you have lots of coordinating objects and they decide to use all the scripts except one by dragging them onto other objects and relinking.

I have to say I think this is a bad idea. I can under stand your logic. But I would rather they add an option to bind object to innovatory, and the function llGetScriptCreator().


forinstance if they did implement your suggest, and I have an object that I have scripted to take an object out of it's innovatory, and that object also need to be locked. Then that would break the script.

Also if I bought a suit case, I would also want to be able to place thing in the suit case.

also from a technical view if mod lock locks innovatory in, shouldn't it also lock it's rights as well? because those objects rights are now part of THE object.

This is not a 'suggestion'. It's a bug report. Or at least I HOPE blaze reported this as a bug (because I don't have any no-mod objects with scripts in them, so I can't report it). It really should be in the technical issues forum.

If an object is moddable, you can change it. If an object is no-mod, you shouldn't be able to change it. PERIOD.

btw, ama's solution works perfection, just drop it in the on_rez and/or stage_entry of any script you make.

Then your script cannot be dropped in other items

if you're speaking of things where a script MUST be copy enabled, like a pet or a vehicle or something like that, then setting no transfer defeats this for resell. Yes, they can copy your script out and put it into other items, but as long as your script is also no modify, they can't really DO anything with it. The permissions, as they are, don't seem to be a huge problem unless you're forgetting to set no modify no transfer on each script.

So really, your script can't be stolen under these conditions, just put into things where it will often make no sense. (I have taken scripts out of a Yip Yip and can put them in slimes or anything else, but I can't give these versions to anyone as the scripts wouldn't transfer)

Also whether the object is modifyable or not is besides the point. Permissions work backwords. If I sell you a no mod, yes copy yes transfer prim with a no mod no transfer script in it, you won't be able to transfer the prim until the script is out of it or the prim will transfer but not the script.

So everything works fine.

No, everything doesn't work fine.

My scripts are designed with a simple 'drag-and-drop' mentality, allowing myself to simply drag them into any prim and the script will fit itself to whatever prim it's in (or alter the prim). If someone can take an object of mine and pull the script out and put it somewhere else, they've just gotten a script for free. They've just stolen from me.

No they haven't. They can't drag the script out if they don't own the prim for one. Unless you set 'allow anyone to copy' ON THE SCRIPT even if you don't set it on the prim. One way or another, they had to come into possession of the script by obtaining it from you legitimately. They can't really steal anything they already have bought. If it really bugs you, you can always set your scripts to be NO MOD, NO COPY, YES TRANSFER. Some people do this for scripts they expect people to not lose (like non-vehicle scripts), or scripts carefully created to return at edge. But hey, they'll be able to resell it, even put it in different things, just not have more than one copy.

With NO MOD, YES COPY, NO TRANSFER, they can have as many copies of the script as they want in as many places as they want. They just can't do anything useful with them like give them away or resell them.

I think what you're looking for is an option to set NO MOD, NO COPY, NO TRANSFER. As it is now, that's not an option. It sounds like you want that option. Don't try to say that the current options are 'bugged'. The are working exactly as they should. Maybe they should have that option, and maybe you should put it in as a feature suggestion.

In the mean time, you should adjust your scripts as Ama Omega suggested. It sounds like that's what you want. Frankly, I do see some of my objects where Ama's function would be useful, but I also see some where changing the permissions as they are now would be counterproductive.

I'm sorry, but no one (NO ONE) should be able to edit the contents of a no-mod object. PERIOD. That's what no-mod MEANS. No modifications allowed means NO CHANGES ALLOWED means NO CHANGING THE CONTENTS. *beats you over the head with a dictionary* It's a simple concept.

So are reverse permissions schemes. It's worked this way since I've existed in secondlife and I'm used to it. You're proposing to change the way everything works (from my point of view). Naturally I'm against it.

order of permissions:
things inside objects inside object->objects and things inside object->object

This hierarchy works just fine for me. All you seem to need is the ability to set a no rights option on the first level (things inside). Unfortunately for the owner of that object they wouldn't be able to do anything with it. Further it lets you do fun things like letting people use your bullet script (or not), while your gun is inaccessable or have limited ammo.

What you beat me over the head with a dictionary is you WANT:

object->objects and things inside object->things inside objects inside object.

The reason the second one suxxors is because then the single permission of the object overrides all others. Now you can't sell a no mod/no copy/yes transfer box with a no mod/yes copy/no transfer script in it. it'd be impossible. Under this situation you can't sell a single gun without selling them infinite copies or making it modifyable and selling them a non-modifyable copyable bullet seperately.

This is why what you want will never ever happen. It'll break every gun in SL. Not that I care about guns, but I'm sure there are anagolous situations. Reversing the permissions system is a bad idea.

if you don't want your contents changed, make it so they can't be changed. That's within our capability, or request a 'no rights' feature to set on contents. Either one would benefit you more than rewriting the permissions system.

Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't see how they are stealing from you. I have Cubey Terra's DIY helicopter script... If I want to put it in something else (which he even suggests doing in his notes), I have to take it OUT of whatever it is in, and then plug it into the new object. I still have 1 and only 1 copy of the script, which I paid for.

How is this stealing? You sell them 1 script, they own 1 script... if they want 2 instances, they have to buy another from you. No matter where they plug the script into, they still only have the 1 script you sold them. You aren't being stolen from, you just aren't being credited as a creator on the new object.

Because I don't want them putting a script I made (say, my fireflies, or some other project I work on in the future) that has my name on it into a giant penis. Then it looks like I put the script into the giant penis. I didnt' choose for it to be there, but now my name is on it.

If you want the ability to remove objects from an object's contents, turn mod on.

You can't turn mod on if you're not the owner. So selling a script in a box would be impossible. Also, as mentioned several times now, there are alternative solutions to breaking permissions. Also I usually blame the creator of the object, not the script, but I know better.

Ah, but if someone is selling a script in a box intended to be pulled out, the creator needs to set the box to mod. Simple, no?

if they set the box to mod, the box itself can be used as the basis for a giant dick. There's no reason to pull the script out. What's more, it will look like the person who wrote the script also created the object because the object was modifyable and the person that bought it was able to change it into something gross. That's why my boxes are not mod.