From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 30 18:47:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA26515 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:47:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from awfulhak.org (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26502 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:47:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from gate.lan.awfulhak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA05987; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:14:57 GMT (envelope-from brian@gate.lan.awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <199801302114.VAA05987@awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.1 12/23/97 To: Alex cc: John Kelly , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: STAC vs. the BSD License In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:18:26 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:14:57 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers" > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, John Kelly wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:42:29 -0500, dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. > > Maddox) wrote: > > > > >>"the BSD license" in it's entirety? > > >> > > >> Yes. Basically it says: > > >> > > >> 1. You can use this software however you choose. > > >> 2. Don't blame us if it breaks. > > >> 3. Don't use our name to advertise it [I consider this a difficult > > >> one; it conflicts with the next]. > > >> 4. Do acknowledge the use of the code. > > > > > >Thanks for the reply, Greg... This interpretation is pretty close to > > >what I got out of it. So, I guess this means if I want to be able to > > >include STAC compression into FreeBSD, then _they_ have to be willing > > >to allow STAC to be distributed with no further restrictions than the > > >above... Is that right? > > > > I don't think the STAC people will accept that. > > > > Nevertheless, you should still be able to implement a STAC routine > > which would be called by PPP and PPPD. The trick will be modifying > > PPP and PPPD to optionally call STAC when it's present on the machine, > > without disturbing any users who don't have it on their machine. > [...] > I don't know if it's quite the same thing, but there is a little set of > kernel patches and the like for Linux that provides Stacker and > Drive/Double Space support. It's obviously under the GPL as far as I can > tell. Even if it's not quite the same thing, it wouldn't be a bad thing > imo to impliment. I thought linux used the pppd sources. That'd make things *very* easy for pppd under FreeBSD. Maybe it's time to install Linux on one of my machines again (and hope it stays alive during that initial ``I must have a poke around'' stage). > Linux: The Microsoft Windows(tm) of the Unix(tm) world. > > - alex > -- Brian , , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....