Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uwmcsd1!bbn!bbn.com!clements
From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: PK361.EXE
Summary: What bug?
Message-ID: <28236@bbn.COM>
Date: 10 Aug 88 15:28:10 GMT
References: 
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: clements@BBN.COM (Bob Clements, K1BC)
Organization: Very little
Lines: 19

In article  msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes:
>WEll, Phil has released PKPAK 3.61, with the obvious name change and a
>bug fix.
>...
>msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu              Bill and Opus in '88!!!

I looked through all the text files that were in the PK361
archive and saw NO reference to any bug.  I have a SUSPICION that
there is no bug at all.  I SUSPECT that the reference to a bug is
just to encourage everyone to switch to the newly-named programs
rather than to continue using the ones that caused the lawsuit.

Can anyone give details on this alleged bug?  Is there actually
anything wrong with PK36 other than the legal mess?

Disclaimer:  I am a registered user of PKARC.  I got PK36 in the
snail-mail from PKware.  I just want to understand what's going on.

/Rcc     clements@bbn.com    lotsaplaces!bbn!clements