Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:18:26 -0800 (PST) From: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> To: John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: STAC vs. the BSD License Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980130011536.314C-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <34d17a26.10132893@mail.cetlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Linux: The Microsoft Windows(tm) of the Unix(tm) world. - alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980130011536.314C-100000>