More Permission Options on Creations for Creators
closed
Kyle Linden
How would you like the feature to work?
Id like to have some control over what exactly is "modify" when I sell my clothing (or any other creation). At the moment modify practically grants almost full control over the object. Id love to be able to set exactly WHAT is modifiable on my creations when I sell them. For example I sell my fatpacks as MOD, but really I only want people to be able to modify the texture colors and transparency. However they can actually delete scripts too. Id like to lock down the actual texture, the normal and the spec maps but still allow color changing. And lock down the contents tab. These could all be separate options.
Why is this feature important to you? How would it benefit the community?
Having various states of "modify" permissions would allow better control over the things we make. People could still make full mod items but for those of us who wish to keep some things locked down (textures, contents of the item etc) we can still let customers modify some parts but not others.
Log In
Spidey Linden
closed
Hello, and thank you for your feature request.
Incoming suggestions are reviewed in the order they are received by a team of Lindens with diverse areas of expertise. We consider a number of factors: Is this change possible? Will it increase lag? Will it break existing content? Is it likely that the number of residents using this feature will justify the time to develop it? This wiki page further describes the reasoning we use: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Feature_Requests
This particular suggestion, unfortunately, cannot be tackled at this time. However, we regularly review previously deferred suggestions when circumstances change or resources become available.
We are grateful for the time you took to submit this feature request. We hope that you are not discouraged from submitting others in the future. Many excellent ideas to improve Second Life come from you, our residents. We can’t do it alone.
Thank you for your continued commitment to Second Life.
Kristy Aurelia
This scenario has been brought up during CCUG meeting - making only texture no mod.
What happens if someone adds a script that can mod textures, since scripts in no-mod items can change textures. What if you have a texture changing HUD script, and a 3rd party adds a HUD... do both scripts get to change textures, or neither? How can it tell which is allowed to change textures and which is not... What if the texture changing HUD is made by a different person than the person making the item itself?
There are plenty of other combinations that would cause similar issues.
Journey Bunny
I'd like to see a basic kind of split between visual and functional permissions. I agree with many here that
extremely
granular perms have the probability of making a mess of customer expectations, but I could imagine "Modify Visual" and "Modify Function" as a reasonable possible split (with all prior content having both on or both off if they had Mod on or off.Use case I have in mind:
It would be nice to be able to release an object with mod perms for the visuals, and no-mod for the linkset data. But would be even better to be able to tie-together protections to a particular script. Like a mini certificate system.
The current linkset data "protected" setup has a separate and valuable use, as it allows me to choose whether a stored value is "visible" by default (w/out pwd) and to protect data from being accidentally overwritten.
But one of the persistent scripting challenges in SL is "trusted" communication. This can include Hud>Object, script>script, etc. In general, it is reasonably secure and easy when each endpoint has "predetermined data" to use. BUT, in SL, it is really hard to set predetermined data in an object that has mod permissions. (As is now, it's time consiming but possible to brute-force passwords in a mod object. A pain, but once you have the password, all the data is yours. Many would-be gift card systems discover this).
Being able to declare a functionality-based permission in a function eg, llLinksetKeyPermissions([string scriptNameOne, ...], [string keyname, ...], integer PERM ) to enable a script to basically first-come-first-claimed "claim" some keys for use only by the listed script names would go a long way to making objects that are moddable (eg, "wear this amulet, resize it as you see fit) yet capable of exchanging data without interference.
Kitty Barnett
This is a terrible idea, if only because the amount of things to be edited will only increase as time progresses and what would you pick as the default?
Imagine buying something where you can change the texture but nothing else, and then materials came along but oh, well, that's a different kind of texture + non-texture related options so that's not for you to change. So someone will have bought things thinking they could change it in all ways that mattered to them, except, whoops, something new came along and now it's useless to them.
Additionally, "the lock down 'thing A' but not lock down contents" means that all of a sudden all of this leaks into the scripting system as well. Because if you can drop in a script, but shouldn't be able to change the texture then llSetTexture / llSetPrimParams need to be aware of this.
Which just explodes the complexity and it's virtually a guarantee to have a bug where scripts in current no mod objects suddenly cannot adjust one aspect of a prim, or an endless 'exploit' whack-a-mole where changes/additions in LSL suddenly allow you to circumvent the 'partial mod' setting.
As other people said, what's requested is already possible by having the object be 'no mod' with a script inside that allows prim manipulation (whether that's through a HUD, chat, dialogs, ...).
Kristy Aurelia
I would like to know more in depth why would you want to allow/forbid "modify some parts but not others"?
What parts do you not want people to modify and why?
Why would you want to forbid people from modifying things in the first place?
In my other reply, where I linked the google doc, the only reason in that document, that I could come up with was singles vs fatpacks. What other reasons am I missing?
Jasdac Stockholm
I'd like to see even more relaxed permission types. In my Creative Commons mesh library I'd love it if I could have a public domain setting that would allow anyone to download the model and textures to disk.
Chaser Zaks
No mod kills creativity. Second Life is supposed to be "Second Life". When you buy something IRL, no one can stop you from painting it how you want, or nailing it to a wall, or drilling a hole in it to put a carrot.
No mod has it's use cases, such as for games huds or demos, but otherwise, there shouldn't be no-mod.
A good majority of creators who do no-mod right now, do it because they think it prevents people from copybotting their stuff. Hell, there is even some people who do remote server based DRM where a script checks in to make sure that someone has a license to use the body(As if scripts get copied with copybot).
I think that by doing this, it may encourage more people to do "No-mod", thus causing more people to do copybotting, or otherwise be detrimental to the second life ecosystem(EG: Less sales because people don't know what permissions are actually "locked down").
The times I have had to modify a object for one reason or another is countless. Be it removing useless meshes from a object, reducing the number of meshes by removing stuff I wont use on a outfit, deleting and rewriting scripts because they aren't optimized, or even changing the color through the edit menu because the person shipped it with a terrible color picker.
Modify is important, and I guarantee you people will "lock it down" so that people have to use their HUD to edit it, over the built in editor, because "I think it is easier", when it may be easier to them, but not easy to a majority of their customers.
Rachelle Kiyori
It's funny people think the self-destruct-on-rez do anything other than cause frustration - it's possible to rez an object with scripts completely disabled. If you work for or own any estate, you just find some relatively unpopulated/quiet region and disable the scripts in the debug tag - bam - no more self-destruct-on-rez scripts. And even with that, it's not possible with a TPV-compliant viewer to export the mesh.
The self-destruct-on-rez scripts do not stop gray/black-area viewers doing naughty things, nor does their absence assist them.
Coffee Pancake
Chaser Zaks: No-mod encourages piracy.
Why do people rip textures almost exclusively for personal use?
Because they have insufficient permission to adjust the texture to their use case.
Angel Dakota
Coffee Pancake: If someone is a pirate, they are not my customer and never will be. They choose to steal rather than pay. We should never try to meet these people in the middle. If they want to steal, theyll steal. Combating them is a separate issue.
Kristy Aurelia
We need more mod, rather than less. Here's why most things should be fully mod: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kosnx9oPTZMrMixtH35zvKUhDC2XlVt2HKZ-uH7csOM
In short: SL is supposed to be about creativity and self-expression, no-mod permissions limit that, and that's not good.
Edit: What about future additions? Like PBR, I have items that are way way older than PBR, and I can add PBR textures to them. Now, what if I have a granular-mod item, and a new feature is introduced - for example: let's say granular permission allows changing base PBR texture & tint, but not normal or metallic textures, and then the clearcoat glTF extension is implemented which adds another setting and clearcoat textures. Will those be mod or no-mod on the granular permission item?
Edit2: What about the viewer UI? Most of my mod items in the inventory say no-mod, because they have no-mod scripts inside, while the item itself is mod. Also, there are shops that don't label their items properly, so I have to ask my friends who also shop there and are not as fussy about mod, to check if the item I want was mod... and the resposne I get are "It says no-mod, but I can change the texture". Would granular no-mod tag just be replaced with "🤷" when Emoji viewer is out?
Kadah Coba
Granular no-mod would just be more and broader opportunities for purchase regret.
Item says it is "mod", but really it meant no-mod in many of ways the buyer may have assumed mod meant.
Even if the exact actual permissions of every object being sold in a listing were made completely transparent in the listing in a way that both easy and clear for the buyer to understand and that the creator has no control over changing or misrepresenting (even by accident or etc), it would result in a lot more information the buyer has to process and consider.
Personally to me, any level of no-mod devalues an item and that aspect has some of the highest weight for purchasing decisions. I will almost always pay more for a worse looking copy-mod of something.
If anything, we need better transparency on the current permissions of objects in a product on Marketplace. Even today "mod" tends to mean "only mostly mod" at best. :\
Vincent Nacon
I don't understand why people are complaining about this when people could set them to no-mod anyway.. This just opens up more options on what we could mod in a no-mod world.
Honey Puddles
Imagine you've put together a great outfit, but the RP region or club that you frequent has asked you to reduce your script count. Previously, you could just make a descripted set of your modifiable items.. but the creator decided you're not adult enough to decide that for yourself.
You bought a cool modifyable gun, or a car, and you decide you want to display it at your house. Hang it on a wall, park it in the lot, but the script count is massive. Easy just remove those scripts.. not anymore.
You bought a modifyable boat, and decided you wanted to add some extra animations in, to support a romantic sail with a special someone. Too bad for you, because that item doesn't permit modding the contents.
You bought a modifyable bicycle but it turns out it's just way oversized for your avatar. You want to resize it, but the maker has decided you're only allowed to change the color.
The result of this is LESS fully modifyable content.. not more partially modifyable content.
All this under some misguided mindset that allowing you to rez your shirt will somehow enable content theft. That's what this is about. They don't want you to take out that 'die on rez', but don't want to do the work to add their own tinting solution.
Vincent Nacon
Honey Puddles: What do you mean "not anymore"? People could do no-mod or full mod anyway. This more likely open up more options for those who wasn't into open mod... it would give them more comfort, even if it's just a small step. It's an expanded option we never had. It's not very likely for creators who has been providing open mod for so long, to suddenly go less open. Being that fully open take a lot of dedication and commitment than no-mod creators. If anything, it's more likely that the majority of creators won't change at all when you provide them such option.
Coffee Pancake
Vincent Nacon:
A modify house that's built for 7ft giants, so you want to reduce its size to fit the scale of your avatar and your furniture, get some Li back in the process. win win right? Nope! The creator has deemed you can only modify the textures.
you bought a boat. no, the boat, it's really pretty .. but due to the built in 300 pose multi avatar sex bed it's a pig for region crossings. rip that out, oh no, object contents are locked to protect users from themselves.
That awesome new thing you got is named "~!@$$[BRAND]$$@!~ THE AWESOME THING, BUY ME AT LOCATION!" .. feels excessive. if only you could rename it "thing" .. d-e-n-i-e-d
A dance ball that wont let you add animations by hand.
A Linden decorative tractor, free with your super premium home. If only it was drivable, you have ACS right there .. :'(
A modify white dress. That can only ever be a white dress. you can rename it, so there is that, be thankful!
Coffee Pancake
Vincent Nacon: It takes away options. It's will only ever be used to take away options from items that would be fully modify. This is the OPs actual use case! They ship mod, they want to ship a little less mod.
Vincent Nacon
Coffee Pancake: Are you ignoring what I just said?
Kristy Aurelia
Vincent Nacon: It would just make my shopping even more difficult, many creators already don't label their products and vendors properly to specify if items are mod or no mod... and I only buy mod stuff. Now if I need to look for granular permissions and make sure they're all allowed - what are the chances they're going to be labeled properly?
In a reply to the main post, I've linked a google doc listing whole load of reason of why you'd want to mod an item, and that will depend of the specifics of the item itself and if it allows modifying only one of two things I'd want to modify for end result. That'd be super annoying.
Angel Dakota
Coffee Pancake: I suggested this originally in the feature requests, from the view of a clothing creator and my view was to get MORE people making at least partially mod clothing. I truly cant speak about other creations. When it comes to an all or nothing approach to Mod items lots of creators will chose nothing - go look now at how many clothing items are mod. You may not agree with that, and thats ok - but its a fact. So instead of angrily screaming about why we want more mod items, why not meet in the middle? Those who offer and want to offer full mod can still do so, but allowing partial mod will very likely make creators who are currently in the "nothing" camp, at least make some parts mod. (copied from a reply I made elsewhere cos I wanted to reply the same thing!)
Coffee Pancake
Angel Dakota: There is no meeting in the middle.
This feature has one usecase. To claim a product is modify, but then take away the one aspect of modification that someone might actually use.
This is especially underhanded for rigged clothing that can't be modified by an end user in any meaningful way ... with one glaring exception; This feature grants a clothing merchant the ability to say 'modify' and then lock out tinting. It's now "modify", only it isn't for all practical purposes.
Angel Dakota
Coffee Pancake: Youre now talking about semantics and the packaging of the product. That is outside of whether or not we CAN choose modify options.
Load More
→