>**You may not:**
>
>==> * work around technical limitations in the software,
>
>==> * reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except
> and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite
> this limitation,
>
> * make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or
> allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation,
>
> * publish the software for others to copy,
>
> * rent, lease or lend it, or
>
> * use it for commercial software hosting services.
>

You have been informed by several people that such an exception exists in their jurisdiction.
Me among them in the case of fixing bugs in abandaned software certainly in Germany, AFAIK as general rule in EU jurisdiction as guiding rule to be implemented in local law.

>I have stated why several times. You can go back and re-read my posts.

Repeating a statement does not enhance the probability of it being true.
Speaking only for myself, the above statement has a "code smell" of preaching, which in my case only lessens chances of accepting it as true,.

You can make a thought experiment:
Set a probability threshold of the others around here to be wrong on artificial dichotomies, even above the blind guess of .5
Set the probability of you being correct on such issues much higher, but only to a height you can argue for without invoking religous arguments/concepts, only for being a very smart person.

Then calculate the probability of small tuples of people ALL disagreeing with your view on said dichotomic issue being wrong.
Even a conceited guy like me will start to wonder if his opinion is correct if more than a handful of others ALL disagree on such dichotomies.

Please do not interpret the mention of "preaching" and "invoking religous arguments/concepts" as attempts to goad you into writing something likely to get you banned. I rephrased this quite a bit to make certain my often tongue-in-cheek ment bythoughts (which could be misinterpreted as attacks/goading/tempting) are absent here.


>>Unless you can do all these things, you have no standing to accuse or spread FUD in
>> an otherwise peaceful technical forum so I won't be responding further to "good Rick
>> versus bad community" memes and I'd encourage others to do the same.
>
>I have already done them several times. Please go back and re-read my posts, and pay
>attention to the details in the words I choose. They're added for a reason.

Embolded part - at least to my ears - sounds condescending and spoken from a very high horse, to avoid mentioning preachers typical style again.

There is a definite probability I will follow JRs polite wording of something on the net often repeated with starting "Don't feed...".
Chances are I might enforce it with the technical means available here.
Which is sad, as you sometimes offer neat comments on technical points - but for me total at the moment is clearly tilted to the negative.