[sldev] Re: Permissions - A content creator's view (michi@luskwood.org)

[Nicholaz Beresford]

Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> 2) I think an extension of permissions to give the ability to comply with
>> copyright as well as copyleft should exist. In addition to "no copy", "no
>> transfer", "no modify"; we could indeed have "may not set nomod" or "may
>> not set no transfer". And the eternally asked-for "may not charge money
>> for trasfer".
> 
> "May not set no-mod/copy/transfer" are all interesting options. Applied 
> recursively, they would be enough to implement a copyleft model. And 
> that would by itself remove a lot of the incentive for people to "rip 
> off freebies", because they wouldn't be able to turn them into something 
> that people couldn't pass on.
> 
> And that may have to be enought, because "May not charge money for 
> transfer" is not implementable without tearing huge holes in LSL and 
> existing content. Implementing that would require getting rid of 
> llGiveInventory() and possibly llRezObject() as well. Otherwise any 
> scripted vendor would bypass it automatically.

LOL, I wouldn't expect the system to be perfect in this direction either,
but if you keep the current no-permissions by saying they are an expression
of intent and while they can be broken, serve a purpose, then I don't see
why an opposite expression/intention should not be implemented because it
can be circumvented.  If speed limit signs are used even if you can ignore
them, the same must be true for minimum speed signs.

If the object itself carries an expressed intent of "no sale" that the
end user can check or observe, there will be enough end users to IM the
vendor to death if he circumvents it by a script.

It's like GPL licenses in source.  What counts is the expressed intent
of the creator.


Nick