I wonder if footnote 6 of http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html was added to address this counterclaim? The last revision da

I wonder if footnote 6 of http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html was added to address this counterclaim? The last revision date is 3/14, which seems suspicious.