Mechanics of Resell/Transfer

[Prokofy Neva]

Years ago, the original content creator class of SL used to lobby the Lindens vigorously for a different feature in the permissions system -- a separation of "sell" from "transfer" or "give away" as it is now known.

In other words, instead of having the transmission combined in "transfer/resell" as it is now, they would have an action whereby if an object was not set to sale, the transfer could have an option that would make it impossible for the next owner not to set it to sale, either.

I'm not advocating this change, I'm just asking this about it:

Is is ideology or technology that prevents those functions from being disaggregated? It would be a server-side coding change and not trivial, but is it impossible? This used to be said to use by Lindens.

The advantage is that you could give away freebies that were transferable, so that people could give them to other people, but they couldn't resell them. (I'm actually for keeping the ability of reselling freebies, but I'm asking this again, as a technological question).

 

 

 

[Ciaran Laval]

You're asking for a technical solution to a moral issue.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

The best I can say is that it's not impossible.  In fact, I believe that a change like that would be a very trivial option to add with near zero risk of breaking legacy assets.  Why hasn't it been done yet?  Only a Labbie can answer that. (._.)

 

 

[Prokofy Neva]

No, I'm not asking for a thing to be changed, nor am I asking for technical solutions to moral issues.

I'm asking what is technically feasible, and whether the answer given 7 years ago to oldbies was that no, we don't feel like doing this because we don't believe in it (ideological) or whether it was based on technological exigencies, i.e. the impossibility of attaching a "for sale" status, i.e. a check-off box with a number in the for sale box, with the resell function.

[Ciaran Laval]

Sorry, I should have expanded. Technically it's a flag, if concerns over legacy content could be addressed it's perfectly feasible but then there's a moral issue which would manifest itself with people putting the item into another prim and setting the contents for sale, as the item could be transferred, people could still resell it. I don't think it's worth Linden Lab's time to come up with a solution that could be so easily circumvented.

[Sayrah Parx]

Putting something that's no transfer and/or no copy into another prim already applies those restrictions to the prim, so it seems like there would be no problem with enforcing a new flag in the same way.

One thing that people have brought up is that it would currently be possible for a script to give something away that's transferable but not resalable, like with a vendor that people pay rather than buy from. However, llMapDestination is able to determine whether someone besides the owner had touched the object first, so what I have brought up in response to that point is that it should also be possible for the llGiveInventory functions to determine if someone had paid the object. If it's determined that someone paid the object then it should be possible for the llGiveInventory functions to ignore sending non-resalable items just like it always ignores sending non-transferable items.