On 1998.04.30, Perry E. Metzger <perry_at_piermont.com> 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: dossy@panoptic.com
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
Received on May 01 1998
Intro
