Quote:
Originally Posted by kolla
Wasn't the problem with 3.X that it was _not_ development, but rather "brewed" from already existing patches and updates, very much something anyone can do.
|
You can of course patch your own OS the way you like it. No one can stop you from doing that, and that is not illegal (well, it might be under some draconian law in some countries). But the point is, that what you personally do in your own home as a private individual is your own matter (unless you want to make it public).
The issue is that 3.x contains code that delivers functionality which was not in 3.1. And that it was sold with that added functionality explicitly.
Note that some of its applied patches are not public. Not that it matters to the end result. What matters is that the product 3.x was sold and marketed with that added functionality (development) already included.