Breaking changes

[Ralph Seichter]

On 22.05.18 03:42, Mark Rousell wrote:

> Preventing users from encrypting new data using legacy encryption does
> NOT need to mean that other users have to be prevented from (quite
> legitimately) accessing archived data using legacy encryption with
> maintained software.

Who said "have to be prevented"? Please keep in mind that GPG is
maintained on a voluntary basis. If the people who do the actual work
decide to not maintain outdated software anymore, so they can focus
their limited resources on current releases, they are completely free
to do so and don't deserve to be chastised for the decision.

If somebody wants support for old GPG versions, they can damn well pay
people for that. In more than three decades in this business I have seen
too many users who think that paying for software licenses and upkeep
is an inconvenience, and who take open source software for an all-you-
can-gobble buffet without a thought for the authors. I am not implying
you are one of these people, mind you.

-Ralph