[6644] in bugtraq
Re: CERT Vendor-Initiated Bulletin VB-98.04 - xterm.Xaw
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Allanah Myles)
Fri May 1 14:13:45 1998
Mail-Followup-To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 02:31:28 -0400
Reply-To: Allanah Myles <dossy@PANOPTIC.COM>
From: Allanah Myles <dossy@PANOPTIC.COM>
To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199804302216.SAA09660@jekyll.piermont.com>; from Perry E.
Metzger on Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 06:16:15PM -0400
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
