Wouldn't it be @juliusborisov's job to do this?

The forum title says juliusborisov works for Beamdog. Your complaint is that a page operated by GOG is incomplete. It's not clear that anyone at Beamdog is responsible for changing that page, or that if Beamdog is responsible, that it would be juliusborisov. I will also note that juliusborisov posted a link in this thread to the Beamdog blog where you can read a full changelog (after working around a broken stylesheet that makes the page a featureless gray), and that even for the 2.5 patch, the GOG changelog just delegates to the Beamdog blog instead of providing a full list of changes.

You be you, then.

Providing correct and complete changelogs should be of interest to Beamdog. I'm neither working for GOG nor Beamdog.
When a store has a wrong presentation of wares, any reputable producer will demand a correct presentation.

That's a different argument though. You started by saying that juliusborisov is responsible for fixing this. Beamdog may well want this to be done better, but it's not necessarily the case that juliusborisov is the person at Beamdog who should handle this. Also, as I noted above, it's not clear to me whether a Beamdog employee can do anything other than send a strongly worded e-mail reminding GOG to fix the changelog.

GOG has never done an even passable job at presenting version data well. Just try learning the current version of a game that you haven't already bought. It should be on the store page and obvious, but it's nowhere to be found. Getting the changelog wrong is just a small part of that ongoing failure.

I agree with you that GOG has never done an even passable job at presenting version data. I will contact GOG's support team on Monday. Experience tells that I will get an answer after patch 2.7 was released.

About Beamdog and the right person for this: I would expect any motivated employee to take care of such a problem or report it to the right person.

The police have entered the building.

He can say what he wants, wherever he wants. I honestly was trying to save him from the frustration of posting repeatedly ignored messages to devs on the GOG forum. What is wrong with people?.

And also save the rest of us the distraction of seeing the thread marked as "New posts available" only to find that it's just another reminder about the GOG copy of the changelog, rather than actual discussion of the patch, such as my question about savegame portability (which someone kindly answered), the announcement that the Mac build was now posted, or (although unlikely) follow-up from Beamdog to announce that a new hotfix is in the works due to some important issue missed in the 2.6 patch.

For what it's worth, I appreciate your attempt to be helpful here.

French is still not included in BG2 ? Wasn't it supposed to be included as a beta ?

No, it just installs the Linux 2.6 in folder named differently than the one used for 2.5 ... Weird.

Ditto.

Is there a fix for this? I upgraded and now I can't play at all.
Thanks.

You don't "fix" and it's not "this".
It's normal operation.

There are shared libraries required by executables (or other libraries). There are paths for the linker to search for those shared objects. If the linker doesn't know of a path where it may find all the needed libs for the binary you are trying to exec, it fails.
So you don't fix this, bc it's not broken. You do what is necessary to provide for the linker to do its work.

And if we don't dive deep into the details, all general purpose OSes are very similar in this regard.
So yeah, both in windows and in linux you are actually confronted with the same problem with shared objs.

In this case the vendor obviously neglected to move to a sane version of a library during development, bc 1.0.0 was outdated in recent versions of distros for ages (long before 2.6 and 2.5 and..), nor to ship it with the distribution - might be because of some of the more stupid american "crypto export" laws. Or for some other equally dumb reason.

Why they would even need openssl for their game I've no idea and frankly don't wanna know.
Why it (presumably) just works for the Windoze users? Well, sigh, it's another rhetorical question, which should be aimed at the vendor. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Possibly the windoze executable doesn't even need it in its library chain.

For the Linux distro they probably still target something supported but really quite outdated like Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, in which 1.0.0 was probably still used.

Just putting the library to a certain path works if the said path is either in the exec's built-in RPATH, or is added as a searchable path for the libraries via an environmental variable in it's startup script (most probably the latter).
It might have stopped working bc this has changed.

Thus what you have to do is look at the script launched and it's nailed to contain what library path it exports and put the library there.
Otherwise you could utilize the $LD_LIBRARY_PATH env var yourself.

Before it was enough to put the libraries inside the game folder and the launcher script would find them no problem, but with 2.6 that no longer works. Now I specifically have to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Why, no idea, but now it works.