Re: Speaking about the f*ing manual...
Was it labelled "Beware of the Leopard"?
641 posts • joined 24 Jan 2012
* If the maintainers don't take down all tarballs of previous versions containing any of that code, they are still redistributing the withdrawn code, with a GPL2+ notice attached.
* If the maintainers don't either take down the git repo, or painstakingly reconstruct history without that person and then force push, they are still redistributing the withdrawn code, with a GPL2+ notice attached. (Reverting wouldn't be enough, it's still in the history.)
Either of these could be pretty disastrous if taken to the extreme, but it's obvious the withdrawn code would no longer be in the current release. Have RMS or ESR (or indeed Linus) made any comment on what the right to withdraw means in the context of a publicly accessible git repo?
Once worked for an IT waste refurbishment (new stickers on old junk) company, no formal customer support although the owners were ex IT support people themselves. I had to take someone through booting from an XP install CD, getting to the recovery command prompt and doing chkdsk /f, over the phone, letter by letter. Disk corruption caused by not shutting down.
There were occasional good days, like when we got in a BBC Master that turned out to have the Domesday Project SCSI controller and second processor fitted. If they had the Laserdisc drive too I'd have taken it off their hands myself in short order.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020