script transfer permission

Attention all scripters!
A script with: Modify, Copy and NO Trans permissions, is not safe from being transferred anymore.
It can be read, copied and pasted and thus transferred.

If I'm right it was not always like that. A script should permit all for the source to be read

A script with modify permissions is never safe.

Never has been. Thanks to good ol' "select-all, copy, paste".

One of either no-copy or no-transfer used to keep you from being able to read the source code even if the script was modify-enabled. The one useful thing I found for that is that you could rename the script, whereas you could only rename a no-modify script by dropping it into object inventory and thus adding/changing the numeric suffix on it. One of the tricks I used to pull (still do sometimes, but generally more for myself now rather than people I give stuff to) is to put some very limited configuration parameter(s) in the name of the script itself, and have the script parse the value of llGetScriptName().

I can't remember which permission besides modify disabled access to the source code though. Maybe it was no-copy that did it. Quick someone (less lazy than myself, because I don't want to login right now) test whether you can read the source code of a modify/no-copy/transfer script. Heh.

I don't actually understand why LL interprets "no modify" to mean "you can't change the name". The name is not the thing... it's just a pointer.

you can't change the name on anything that's no-mod

Yes, I KNOW that.

That's the POINT.

Let me be clearer:

There is no reason why you should NOT be able to change the name of no-mod assets. The name is not part of the asset. It is a reference to the asset. Allowing you to change the name of no-mod assets would not allow any content theft, would not allow anyone to get more from a product than the creators intended, would not be an exploit, would have no negative consequences whatsoever. In fact it would increase the security of content creators because it would allow them to make assets no-modify that they currently have to leave modifiable.

It was, I believe, a mistake by Linden Labs to make "no modify" mean "no rename".

This is a particular nuisance when you're scripting for animations, I find. People make their anims no-mod (a waste of time, I'm told, since apparently there's no sensible way you can steal the contents of an animation file the way you can the contents of a script) and then give them weird, wonderful and lengthy names, full of non-alpha-numeric characters and trailing spaces, to make life more interesting when you're trying to read the names from an object's inventory.

No Copy, would restrict the script from displaying the source code, and yet allowing for the script to be reset via the Tools menu, recompiled, renamed etc.

But now this functionality has changed?

i'm not in world to try it, but if i remember right, as long as you have mod perms of the object, you can reset/recompile scripts regardless of their perms

The UUID is a reference to the asset, the name is a property of the asset and if it is set to no modify should not be changable. There are reasons other than copy protection to limit the ability to change the name of a script or other asset.

The name exists in the account or object inventory, it is not a property of the asset. For example, the same asset can be referenced with multiple names, or with no name at all, and the name can be changed deliberately or accidentally by dropping it into the contents of an object where an item with the same name already exists.

There is no inherent reason for interpreting "no modify" as "no rename".

i see what you mean, like sounds or textures. you could have a texture named green grass, and you give it to someone, they rename it grass. even though they have different names, both copies are indeed the same texture. same with sounds and animations. as far as objects though, until they're rezzed in world, their uuid is null isn't it? what about notecards, or scripts? do copies of those have the same or different uuid?

i guess we're just going off topic anyways though, speaking about how the permissions system works, you should be able to rename no-mod stuff, just like someone mentioned about the animations, the creator gives them long silly names, you can't even copy&paste the name if you don't have mod perms unless you use a script to say it's name in chat

Further discussion on the renaming issue might be continued in http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-3675

Only scripts that permit modify, copy AND transfer should ever have the source shown!!!
Because when you can read it you can: modify it, copy it and transfer it!!
Furthermore, the creator of the script will change in the process

I'm not seeing this but if it doesn't work as dora just specified, then file a showstopper jira with a repro!!

Unless a script has full perms neither the source nor any bytecode should ever leave the server.

/esc

No, sorry.. that's not right.

if you can modify the script, then you can edit it, and therefore read the code. So, the trick then only takes someone to copy the text out of it, create a new script, and paste the code into it.

If you don't want your code taken.. make the code no-modify.
if you don't want the script that shows your name as creator transferred, make it no-transfer.
If you don't want someone to have more than one copy of the script, make it no-copy.

it is not technically possible to create a script (from scratch) that is no mod, no copy, AND no transfer. You can do so, using an alt to pass the script to no-copy, and back.. then you can add the no-trans and no-mod limitations.

But, that's besides the point you've raised.

Modify scripts are editable.. editable scripts are viewable. viewable scripts are clipboard copyable. no-modify scripts are not viewable, or editable, and can only be copied if copy-permission is given, and only transferred if transfer permission is given.

Otherwise, what purpose would "modify" permission have in a script? It's never been limited in any weird "full-permissions-only" way that I've ever noticed (and my modifyable tipjar is no-transfer, and no one has ever not been able to edit it).

Compare this to notecards... modify notecards can be changed, no-modify notecards can still be read, but can not be changed. Both (I beleive) can be clipboard copied, regardless of copy-permission.

As far as I can remember, it's ALWAYS been this way...
If you don't want people to see/copy your code, just set your scripts no-modify.. sheesh.

Right! so what is the point in making a script or a note card No copy or No trans if it can be read and clipboard copied?

Here's a rather old but informative quote (and see the full article for an interesting bit of background reading).

I agree with Argent that it's not necessary to make the name no-mod, but you have a point.

The name identifies the product. If you sell animations and want people to be able to see which of your animations is being used, you may want the name unchangeable. (The users of your anims my want the opposite: they don't want their competitors to easily be able to identify which animations are being used in their products, to make them more difficult to copy.)

In the rare cases where I sell anims xfer/copy, I sell them no-mod, with the license terms stated briefly in the description. So, I'm taking advantage of the fact that no-mod doesn't allow the description to be changed.

But all in all, I think I'd prefer things to be the way Argent wants them.

All beside the point of the OP, of course.

That's how I understood it to work. Hopefully that's how it's still actually working.

This data does seem to date back to at least March 4, 2005. I was not aware of that special case before.. and since none of my scripts have ever been released as both modifyable AND no-copy, that would probably be why I've never encountered it. So I was wrong.

That said, I think that the OP is just "freaking out" over behavior that they've just now noticed, but has been this way for 4 years or more... As far as I can tell, this behaviour hasn't changed one bit.

But let's put this matter to rest, and do some actual testing.

I conducted the following test. I created 6 new scripts, one with each possible permission setting, dragged them all to a full perms prim, and then handed that prim to an alt. The following are my observations when logged into the "second party" alt. This is the perspective of a "customer" viewing these scripts. (and yes, I pulled the scripts out of the prim first).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR:
The following results were gathered on January 17, 2009, using Henri Beauchamp's Cool Viewer for SL, based on SL 1.21.6 (0).. the tests were conducted on a (non openspace/homestead) mainland sim, running server 1.24.10.106829. No inventory anomalies were encountered during these tests.

[x]M [x]C [x]T  Opens (code visible)
This case allows full editing of the script by the second owner, permissions can be changed, the code can be read, and the script can be renamed. This is basically an "Open Source" script. The guts of this script can be altered, or copied out using the text-copy tool, and pasted into a new script.

[x]M [x]C [ ]T  Opens (code visible)
This script can be opened, edited, and renamed, but it's permissions can NOT be edited by the second owner. Of course, this script is no-transfer, so there's really no point in changing next-owner permissions, is there? The guts of this script can be altered, or copied out using the text-copy tool, and pasted into a new script.. but the actual script can't be passed on (showing the original creator). This is a great way to share a script with someone, without worrying that they'll make a doomsday device that shows your name as creator.

[x]M [ ]C [x]T  "You are not allowed to view this script."
This script can NOT be opened.. however it can be renamed. You can alter the "modify" permission for a "third" owner, but you can not affect the next-owner's transfer permission.

[ ]M [x]C [x]T  "You are not allowed to view this script."
This script can not be opened, or renamed.. but the second owner CAN affect the copy and transfer permissions for a third-owner. Of course (as always) the choice is really CT, C or T. there's no "none" option here.

[ ]M [x]C [ ]T  "You are not allowed to view this script."
This script can not be opened or renamed.. and the second-owner can not change the third-owner permissions. (being no-transfer, this is a moot point).

[ ]M [ ]C [x]T  "You are not allowed to view this script."
This script can not be opened or renamed.. and the second-owner can not change the third-owner permissions.. Once no-copy, it seems that transfer is automatic.

[x]M [ ]C [ ]T  Case not possible
[ ]M [ ]C [ ]T  Case not possible
These two situations seem to be impossible to create.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Bottom line.. if you don't want people to see your code.. just set the no-modify flag.

Thanks Winter, but all the cases look alike to me, with empty square boxes.

Better?

Thanks Winter. Very useful test and info