🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ut5e6INNg6r@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>I don't think so.  The GPL says that if you provide binary-only
>distribution, you must offer to make the corresponding source available for
>at least three years.  Providing a pointer to the latest source, instead of
>the source to the version that someone downloaded a year ago, is not
>equivalent.  The FSF doesn't have to make old versions available because
>they don't do binary distributions.

I hope that's not confirmed by rms, because you have no idea how that
will complicate my life and, I suspect, the lives of many other people.

I still don't see why this should be so, if we keep our product completely
in sync with the latest release and explicitly decommit any support for
the old product, providing source code to those who refuse to update, why
should that be the case?

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a "disgrace",
that two are called a "law firm", and that three or more become a "Congress".