posting fixes, license, and the u-area bug

[John C. Archambeau]

werme at Alliant.COM (Ric Werme) writes:
>In article <1991Mar1.155948.23736 at pegasus.com> richard at pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
>>Given the egregiousness of the bug in question it would seem quite
>>reasonable for someone at ISC to make such an effort.
>
>[to get permission to post AT&T source code.]
>
>Given the egregious nature of this bug and that it came from an AT&T release,
>it would seem quite reasonable for AT&T to post an apology and their fix.
>Of course, it probably wouldn't work on ISC's code, but it could provide
>a basis for a fix ISC could post.
>
>I wonder if AT&T is embarassed at all.
>
>Given all the flames directed at ISC, I'm surprised people haven't flamed
>AT&T.  Maybe they have means to detect such messages sent over AT&T lines....

AT&T fixed the bug.  So it's not AT&T's fault per se.  ISC just licensed the
code that had the bug.  Now this can be remotely understandable with ISC
2.0.2, but 2.2.x?

     // JCA

 /*
 **--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 ** Flames  : /dev/null                     | What to buy?
 ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca at nosc.mil     | EISA or MCA?
 ** INTERNET: jca at pnet01.cts.com            | When will the bus wars end?
 ** UUCP    : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca
 **--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
 */