[sldev] Permissions - A content creator's view

[Tofu Linden]

dirk husemann wrote:
> so, we should have the following permissions:
...
>     * for sale/not for sale

This seems a fine example of something which is not technically
enforceable to an appreciable degree (I mean - even less so than
no-copy; consider the myriad ways in which you or your vendor may
technically accept some money and technically give an item but
with no clear mechanically-traceable correlation between these
events).

It's a great example, though, of an attribute which an item can at
least carry around as a non-resettable flag so that the purchaser
can know that the seller didn't have permission to be selling that
item in the first place, albeit too late.  A lockdown-able free-text
license field is perhaps the ultimate extrapolation of that idea,
though also perhaps a technical cop-out.

An arbitrary license for objects seems very similar (albeit
potentially legally stronger - though I Am Not A Lawyer) to the
existing Covenant scheme for land, though I'm not sure how much
utility/traction the Covenant scheme has proven to have so far.

-Tofu