Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
> That doesn't seem to contradict Branden's post. Feel free to discuss
> it with him, though; I wasn't around at the time.
Eh... I think I remember that it was thrown in for Knuth's software,
thoughI don't remember the specifics of those licenses and packages.
I do remember that there were specific pieces of software that
we wanted to include at the time which we felt the distribution
could not do without which needed the patch clause to be
acceptable. The way I remember it, we would not have included
the patch clause if we hadn't had a specific need for it.
But I'd want to dig up the old licenses to be sure that my memory