From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 20 03:50:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA18779 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 03:50:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from vector.jhs.local (slip139-92-42-164.emea.ibm.net [139.92.42.164]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA18703 Sat, 20 Jan 1996 03:49:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vector.jhs.local (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA10000; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 16:05:13 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199601181505.QAA10000@vector.jhs.local> X-Authentication-Warning: vector.jhs.local: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu (David E. O'Brien) cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hacker's list) Subject: Re: FBSD 2.1 Reply-To: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: Vector Systems Ltd. (Internet Unix & C Consultants) Address: Holz Strasse 27d, 80469 Munich, Germany Phone: +49.89.268616 Fax: +49.89.2608126 (pending reconfig) Web: http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/ Mailer: EXMH version 1.6.5 95 12 11 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jan 1996 02:56:02 PST." <9601161056.AA10894@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 16:05:12 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Reference: > From: obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu (David E. O'Brien) > Subject: Re: FBSD 2.1 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 02:56:02 -0800 (PST) > Message-id: <9601161056.AA10894@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu> > > > > > 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. > > > > Why is that? What is wrong with the sources to BSD compress? > Call me stupid, but aren't they covered by the BSD copyright? In > /usr/src/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES it suggests that /usr/bin/compress > should be safe as far as this goes. Have I misunderstood? Apparently the people who invented the compress algorithm published it, some others subsequently wrote a C program to implement it, last year it was discovered those publishers had silently applied for a patent, just before publishing I think, & were suddenly starting to make noises about money required. So a nice chap in France wrote a much more efficient thing called `gzip' & the Free Software Foundation (later FreeBSD too) switched from using compress to gzip. Fortunately the compress patent applicants had not applied for a patent to uncompress, so we still have uncompress inside gzip, which left a pleasant forward migration path :-) Gzip is more efficient, compress is being left behind :-) I recall contributing a minor fix to compress once, & suggesting a functional change to gzip (with other people) that was adopted, hence my interest. Julian -- Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/