[sldev] Re: Permissions - A content creator's
view (michi@luskwood.org)
Argent Stonecutter
secret.argent at gmail.com
Mon Sep 24 13:12:30 PDT 2007
On 24-Sep-2007, at 14:36, Nicholaz Beresford wrote:
> 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.
The difference is that with scripted vendors being so common, and due
to the fact that scripted vendors would automatically bypass ANY kind
of "do not resell" restriction, innocent infringement is not just a
reasonable defense... it becomes inevitable. A sign that you can
bypass without even seeing it is no sign at all... if the "speed
limit" sign was behind a tree, and you can prove it, then unless
you're in a crooked jurisdiction you'll beat the ticket.
> 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.
But the fact that the product has a "do not resell" permission
doesn't mean the guy you bought it from was violating that
permission. It may simply be because that guy doesn't want YOU to
resell it. Permissions don't apply to the the person who sets them,
they're "next owner" restrictions.
You could only allow the creator to do that, but that would cause
problems for people who use kits in their builds.
> It's like GPL licenses in source. What counts is the expressed
> intent of the creator.
That's a much better idea. Adding a trapdoored license field to the
permissions system pointing to a notecard (by UUID), allowing you to
put an irrevocable covenant on the asset, would do as well... and be
far more versatile. For example, it would mean that people wouldn't
be able to say they "didn't know" that the GPLed script in the no-mod
avatars they're selling was covered by the GPL.
Right click on the object and select "license" and it'll show you all
the licenses on that object or its content. The license could even be
set so you have to approve it to accept the object, though I suspect
many people will decide to shun vendors who abuse that option.
That way if you bought the product from "Honest John" and the license
says "This object is only to be sold by Original Creator", you know
that "Honest John" didn't just set the "no sale" bit.
More information about the SLDev
mailing list