Re: CERT Vendor-Initiated Bulletin VB-98.04 - xterm.Xaw

[dossy () PANOPTIC COM (Allanah Myles)]

On 1998.04.30, Perry E. Metzger <perry () 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