> This current thread seems fairly unreasonable, considering Jason
> has affirmed that 4.2Ia is not a bug-fix. Thus, you can assume
> that it contains something new that was needed to support a
> product that isn't yet released and therefore cannot *legally*
> be discussed publicly at present.

> Please give Jason some space and abide by his statement "There
> is no need to discuss that particular sub-release here."

I find this a most puzzling line of thought.

If the code has been "released" then the code itself is not private
and should be able to be discussed amongst ourselves - particularly
if we find anything that may impact our own code.

Your statement would seem to indicate that it is not legal for us
to talk about the changes. If we cant talk about them then by
extension I imagine we cant use them. If there are some legal
implications relating to the code then it should not be released.

We were not asking for explanations of why particular changes were
made or for anyone to bring forward proprietary information about
applications using the code. All we (or myself at least) intended
was to ask for consistent notification that changes have been
released, and we can take a look if we are interested.

Often Jason does announce subreleases, but it does not seem to be
a regular or consistent thing. If it were, and the current release
had been announced, then the current topic would not have arisen
and our natural curiousity would not have been aroused. :-)

Whatever. Mum's the word, I promise not to discuss IBO code until
further notice.

--
Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing