glibc 2.2.4 Release Notes

[MJ Ray]

Joack at gmx.net writes:

> Surely it istn't the usual way for rms (as was claimed) to get involved in
> other peoples projects, is it?

Question: was RMS originally involved in glibc?

> This release is really bad publicity, I think, and it does go well with what
> "people say". This is the first instance that somebody actully says it has
> happened to him. (That I know of)

Question: Why would this redhat employee wish to weaken RMS?

Emacs/XEmacs seems the most similar previous case to this, but I could
be wrong.

> Do you know more? Who, where do they claim this?

I too would like to know.