Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!caen!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!psuvax1!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcomsv!calcite!vjs From: vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) Subject: Re: Is FreeBSD free? Message-ID: <D0IKBv.BuK@calcite.rhyolite.com> Organization: Rhyolite Software Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 22:40:43 GMT References: <KSTAILEY.94Dec7103038@leidecker.gsfc.nasa.gov> <D0GvM0.5EA@calcite.rhyolite.com> <D0HBxK.6FM@kithrup.com> Lines: 86 In article <D0HBxK.6FM@kithrup.com> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <D0GvM0.5EA@calcite.rhyolite.com>, >Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote: >> - the GPL people pay a lot of "attention" to compress vs the LZW >> patents, I think mostly because compress.c is not covered by >> the GPL. The GPL people think people working on BSD software >> without adding GPL's are Traitors To Humanity. > >Wrong. A non-LZW compression algorithm was invented, AND NOT USED, because >it was patented. It was invented by someone who would have copylefted the >code, and who found out, after he had created and tested it, that a patent >had recently been issued. The current gzip algorithm is the second attempt, >and, so far, has not been usurped by a patent. That is still possible, >however, because of idiocies in the US PTO. You're wrong on two counts. I was referring to the FSF diatribes about the LZW patent with respect to compress.c, the arguments that FSF used to rationalize the gzip effort to start with. I hadn't realized gzip had hit a patent. Second, I don't see how the current gzip can have any worries, given that it is essentially LZ77, and 1977 was a long time ago. Gzip should have stood on its own merits, instead been part of the FSF jihad to GPL the universe. Gzip compresses more densely, but at the cost of a few more cycles. >> + At one time, Unisys informally told software vendors to go >> ahead and not worry about the patent > >Unisys would not place this in writing. This was a requirement by the POSIX >committee before making compress a POSIX standard -- a similar requirement >was made for the AT&T setuid-bit patent, and AT&T agreed. Unisys did not >agree. Without that paper, Unisys could bring suit against anyone they >chose to, at any point they want to. Unisys did place it in writing (i.e. email), but not publically on paper, which made it useless to lawyers. I could easily believe that Unisys regretted or even disavowed that email. Who Unisys could sue (usefully) at this point is far from clear, but I know I'm not competant to argue the point. The arguments of the FSF were clearly and obviously tainted by their jihad-instructed self-interest, and I don't feel like paying a lawyer. >> - there are things worse than the GPL, including software patents, >> but there are also things much better than the GPL, such >> as the BSD copyrights. > >That depends on what you want to do. For what RMS and the FSF want to do, >a BSD-style copyright is not acceptable -- look at what BSDi did. Yes, that depends on what you want to do. As far as I can tell, BSDI did absolutly nothing wrong, immoral, unethical, or shady. (The infamous actions of one long ago, former BSDI employee with respect to BSDI's interests are another story). BSDI wrote new code and sold it, and fought with a large corporate law department to save their business and incidentally to free the BSD code for everyone else. (Yes, they had non-trivial help from others, including the Regents). 4.4BSD-Lite is out and freer than previous BSD versions. It would be offensive nonsense to insist that the new BSDI code be free simply because their company nicname has "BSD" as a substring. Anyone who prefers the free BSD UNIX code can get it. As far as I know, BSDI has followed the GPL on the GPL'ed code they ship, just like the many other commercial outfits that ship GPL'ed code. I think BSDI's new pricing policy is incredibly stupid and shortsighted, but that problem belongs solely to the owners, managers, and employees of Berkeley Software Developement, Inc. and is as irrelevant to arguments about the GPL as the policies of any other commercial software outfit, except those selling support for GNU software (e.g. Cygnus). >I happen to place a BSD-style copyright on code I write, but I freely and >happily use and modify GPL'd code. Unlike others, I don't use the code and >then bitch because the authors didn't see fit to place a license *I* want on >the code *they* wrote. I emphatically agree with that last sentence. It's too bad the GPL people disagree with it, and appear to feel that all code should be GPL'ed regardless of the wishes of its authors. I'm refering specifically to the famous compliants and charges from MIT addresses a few years ago about the lack of GPL on 4.3BSD--or maybe it was the net2 release. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com