From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 30 01:17:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA23123 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:17:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (garbanzo@spain-7.ppp.hooked.net [206.169.228.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA23114 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:16:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA00588; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:18:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: zippy.dyn.ml.org: garbanzo owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:18:26 -0800 (PST) From: Alex X-Sender: garbanzo@zippy.dyn.ml.org To: John Kelly cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: STAC vs. the BSD License In-Reply-To: <34d17a26.10132893@mail.cetlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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. Linux: The Microsoft Windows(tm) of the Unix(tm) world. - alex