> Obviously neither side of the discussion can be convinced. It would > possibly be a good idea to through in some more general thoughts about > GPL'ed software. > If I understood RMS' basic intention right he is all for the freedom of > the _user_. This basically means no software vendor or supplier should > have the power to dismiss a running system only because he thinks it is > the right thing to do. This can only be a users' choice. And it is his > choice _not_ to listen to the supplier and do updates or whatever.
Right. I agree with you. > Following this thought it was no good idea to bring the ancient > services down only to make people update. That is exactly what GPL is > _not_ about. > Nobody can and should drive a supplier of GPL'ed software to deliver > ultimate support. It is his choice to stop supporting certain versions. > But that can be handled in a user-friendly way, too. > And really, the whole idea of eol'ing GPL software is really violating > the moral ground. And that is what makes people upset. Right, right. Absolutely right. Also, in this specific case some work-arounds to the problems were both feasible and inexpensive. I can understand that the team of an open-source product would even decide to break things when at a corner. But this wasn't really the case. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
