posting fixes, license, and the u-area bug

[Richard Foulk]

>> Wrong.  ISC can go to AT&T and say "Please give us permission to
>> violate the licensing agreement and post this fix."...
>
>#ifndef reality
>
>Wait...OK, I get it!  Marty should just spend a little of her copious free
>time, or perhaps do it on her lunch hour...just drop by the local AT&T
>office and have a friendly chat, say "By the way, we've got this little
>problem, so would you folks mind if we posted, oh, say a couple hundred Kb
>of the code we license from you?"  I'm sure AT&T won't mind if we say
>"pretty please".

Given the egregiousness of the bug in question it would seem quite
reasonable for someone at ISC to make such an effort.

To assume that AT&T wouldn't allow the public distribution of otherwise
useless binaries or parts of binaries seems a little incredible.  I'm
not convinced that ISC's existing license with AT&T specifically
disallows this, or that they wouldn't allow it after a simple phone
call.

There may be other over-riding reasons why posting fixes to the net is
not workable -- but, please don't try to advance your argument by piling
it high with ridiculous BS like this.

One begins to wonder if ISC's motto isn't something like:

    `Well, it probably can't be done ... and I'm too busy to check'