Does the permissions of an object affect the script permissions?

Probably a simple question, but if a script for a door is set to full permissions but the object that uses that script is set to no mod, does the script inherit any of the object permissions? In other words, can the script still be modified even the the door is set to no mod?

only if you take it out and put into a prim with mod perms. i think you can't change the inventory of a no-mod object other than "opening" it and copying no-copy items to your inventory. i've tried deleting things and it would show it delete, but i would also get a "you can't modify this object" error. and when i go back to look in the object, whatever i deleted has returned

Wow! Really? You used to be able to delete stuff out of no-modify objects, but not add anything or rename things already inside. If you're right, that is a very positive change! If that's true, I wonder if no-copy scripts (and other items) also can't be pulled out. That would mean you can truly create a no-modify/no-copy/no-transfer item. Hmm. We should definitely do some testing here again. It could be a major breakthrough for content creators.

I haven noticed one rather annoying thing lately. It seems you can no longer pull out no-copy items from even a full-permission object from the Edit Window. You have to right-click and "Open" the object now. That means you might actually have to unlink an object to pull no-copy items out of child prims. Yuck! I think SOME meddling with the permissions system has been going on at LL....

i knew that if you didn't have full perms of an attachment you couldn't drop stuff into it (without inventory drop allowed) but i have an item i created so i have full perms. i tried to drop a no-mod injector script for a re-sizer system and i couldn't. i didn't want to drop it on the ground so i made my own injector script. i put the script it needed to inject into another object that would listen for a command. when it heard the command it would give the script to whatever object gave the command (IE the attachment), when the attachment got the inventory change it would look for the script, if it was there, it would inject it to the other prims.

/me thumbs his nose at no-copy/no-xfer objects! Artifical scarcity, with no benefit to the consumer, and I'm glad LL didn't make that a supported model. IMHO, this would be a bad argument for making contents of a no-mod object undeletable. However, there are good arguments for not being able to delete the contents of a no-mod object, and this is an unescapable and tolerable consequence.

I agree for the most part, and mostly my positive statement was meant for the bit about not being able to remove things from no-modify objects. That was a horrible "feature" that never should have been around.

But I think there ARE a few limited corner cases where no-transfer/no-copy objects would help. LL basically designed their whole permission system with the assumption that it would follow a capitalistic commercial system of product sales, neglecting the fact that items can be used in ways that do not fit a commercial business model at all, or that fit into it in such a way that not every single inventory item everywhere is itself a product with tangible value.

Yes, and that's a problem. It allows creators to create objects that are neither transfer nor copy and this can't be fixed. Originally LL went on in great detail about how they were balancing creator and consumer rights and guaranteeing the you would have the "right of first sale" with no-copy objects because they would ALWAYS be transferrable.

They dropped that quietly, with no announcement.