On 1998.04.30, Perry E. Metzger <perryat_private> wrote: > For once, I agree completely with Theo. It was bad enough that TOG > decided to turn X into proprietary software -- saying that security > patches for back revs are proprietary is nearly unacceptable behavior. Why? Is TOG still responsible for the older revs? I was under the impression that with the decision to make X commercial, they disavowed older versions of X. Security and patches for older versions of X should now fall into the responsibility to those parties who maintain them. I have a ethical disagreement with TOG's decision to go pay-to-play (shouldn't they be called "The Not-Open Group" now?), but once they've committed to this change, they are entitled to experience the benefits of such decision - not having to maintain legacy software for which they're no longer responsible. Of course, now that TOG is a commercial entity, should there arise any problems and loss of revenue where TOG is directly responsible, they become a viable entity to sue to reclaim for damages. Is there a battery of tech-knowledgeable accountants ready to take lawsuits versus TOG? -Dossy -- URL: http://www.panoptic.com/~dossy -< BORK BORK! >- E-MAIL: dossyat_private Now I'm who I want to be, where I want to be, doing what I've always said I would and yet I feel I haven't won at all... (Aug 9, 95: Goodbye, JG.) "You should change your .sig; not that the world revolves around me." -s. sadie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:51:59 PDT