Preston Beresford
Registered User
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 4
|
04-02-2008 19:33
For several weeks now I have been having a problem where unlinking a prim from a build that has mod/transfer permissions results in the unlinked prim reverting back to the creator's ownership. I have several houses that were created by someone else and have mod and transfer permissions. When I want to make changes that require unlinking prims from the original build, once unlinked the prims show the original creator as owner. It is then impossible to do anything with them other than return them.
Has anyone else experienced this? Shouldn't ownership of all the prims in a linked build transfer to the new owner when purchased, and shouldn't that ownership survive unlinking from the rest of the build? This has caused me a tremendous amount of work in having to recreate elements of a build from scratch to replace those parts that were unlinked.
Any thoughts/insights into this problem would be much appreciated.
|
Preston Beresford
Registered User
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 4
|
04-03-2008 05:06
As a follow up, I have found that this happens when a build is sold as part of a land sale when the transaction includes all objects on a parcel (like a house.) This has been reported in the JIRA: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-369This is a very serious issue as many houses are transferred this way. As a home builder it creates a huge problem for me. A lot of houses will have to be replaced, causing a huge amount of unnecessary work.
|
Thili Playfair
Registered User
Join date: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 2,417
|
04-03-2008 08:45
Quick tested some hat i had; Modify - yes Copy - no Transfer - yes created 1 prim full perm, link to hat (hat main root prim) unlink it will mimic the main root prim permitions, so yes thats how it work. Think its been that way for awhile to avoid prims getting confused and end up with full perm on the main object , if you unlinked the prim that had full perms. Do not really expect this to get a fix really, cause that would mean root = isnt perm on all prims linked to it, and id hate setting perms on every linked prims diffrent cause we'd never know if someone where to be unlinked or not and suddenly end up with a full perm prim.
|
Darien Caldwell
Registered User
Join date: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,127
|
04-03-2008 12:26
From: Thili Playfair Quick tested some hat i had; Modify - yes Copy - no Transfer - yes created 1 prim full perm, link to hat (hat main root prim) unlink it will mimic the main root prim permitions, so yes thats how it work. Think its been that way for awhile to avoid prims getting confused and end up with full perm on the main object , if you unlinked the prim that had full perms. Do not really expect this to get a fix really, cause that would mean root = isnt perm on all prims linked to it, and id hate setting perms on every linked prims diffrent cause we'd never know if someone where to be unlinked or not and suddenly end up with a full perm prim. Perms have nothing to do with it. It's actual ownership of the prim that is the problem. I posted the orignal JIRA nearly a year ago and I have been meaning to try it again to see if it was still broken, it is. Read his post again. An object *you own* reverts back to the ownership of the previous owner on unlink. That is a bug. 
|