Why insult and discriminate authors of old 68k programs when their whole commercial creations are publicly pirated while being expected to uphold sanctity of NG software?
Did I miss something here? Are we even reading the same thread? Seems to me OP posted a very clear and legitimate question: He's the owner of a boxed and fully licensed copy of 2.5. He wanted to know if 2.5.1 was released as a free update that he would then be entitled to download, as is the case of much commercial software today.
All the author had to do was say "Yes, 2.5.1 was released as a free update to licensed owners of 2.5", or "No, 2.5.1 was never released as an update and is still copyrighted commercial software". That's it. Either one of those two responses would've sufficed, and he probably would've gotten a big thanks all around. But then a bunch of people came along and got all OT, and then to make matters worse the author comes along and rather than provide any clarification, basically tells everyone to kiss his ass.
There is not enough facepalms in the world for the absurdity of these forums, some days.
