From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 15 19:07:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA04605 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 19:07:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA04598 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 19:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02934; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 20:09:50 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 20:09:50 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199601160309.UAA02934@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: tnaggs@cddotdot.mikom.csir.co.za (Anthony Naggs) Cc: Hackers@FreeBSD.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: FBSD 2.1 In-Reply-To: References: <16939.821639640@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Copyrights. I don't particularly feel like tangling with either PKWARE > > or UniSys (LZ compression used in Zip). > > > > Jordan > > The InfoZip zip/unzip is fairly generous with their copyright conditions, > and they are fairly confident that they are not violating UniSys' or > PKWare's patents. I just spend the last few minutes looking through the sources, and it appears that ZIP doesn't use LZ, but LZW. Apparently they are different enough to be safe from Copyright problems. The only stickler's I could forsee are: 1) It's pretty much GPL code 2) Any code you write that uses Zip code would have to be GPL'd unless you 'spawn' off the zip tools. Other than that I think we're pretty safe. We're *much* safer with using Zip code than shipping the sources to BSD compress around. Nate