Seth Goodman writes:
> If someone violates your patent and you fail to defend it in any
> meaningful way, you are considered to have abandoned the patent and it
> becomes effectively void.
This is not true. You are confounding patents and trademarks.
> My non-lawyer understanding is that for all
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:06:09PM -0600, Seth Goodman wrote:
> That wouldn't surprise me. If someone violates your patent and you fail
> to defend it in any meaningful way, you are considered to have
> abandoned the patent and it becomes effectively void. Defending it can
> be as simple as sen
> From: John Hasler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:58 AM
<...>
> I have no doubt that Debian contains hundreds of potential
> infringements of IBM patents.
That wouldn't surprise me. If someone violates your patent and you fail
to defend it in any meaningful way,
Gene Heskett writes:
> I see, and many thanks for the link. The one thing it doesn't explain
> however, is why the USTPO allowed 2 different entities to patent the lzw
> algorythm. That is still a puzzlement to me, but what do I know.
One does not patent an algorithm. One patents an invention t
On Thursday 15 December 2005 22:15, Mike McCarty wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
>>
>> I see, and many thanks for the link. The one thing it doesn't
>> explain however, is why the USTPO allowed 2 different entities to
>> patent the lzw algorythm. That is stil
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:40, Gabriel wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 19:29, Gabriel wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrot
Gene Heskett wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
I see, and many thanks for the link. The one thing it doesn't explain
however, is why the USTPO allowed 2 different entities to patent the
lzw algorythm. That is still a puzzlement to me, but what do I know.
Umm, I haven't read
On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:40, Gabriel wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>On Thursday 15 December 2005 19:29, Gabriel wrote:
>>>Carl Fink wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> IIRC one of the algorithms that can be used in zip is lzw
> which is (or was)
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 19:29, Gabriel wrote:
Carl Fink wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
IIRC one of the algorithms that can be used in zip is lzw which
is (or was) patented.
On Thursday 15 December 2005 19:29, Gabriel wrote:
>Carl Fink wrote:
>>On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>>IIRC one of the algorithms that can be used in zip is lzw which
>>> is (or was) patented.
>>
>>The patent expired in 2003.
>>
>> http://www.sslug.dk/patent/lzwun
Carl Fink wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
IIRC one of the algorithms that can be used in zip is lzw which is (or
was) patented.
The patent expired in 2003.
http://www.sslug.dk/patent/lzwunisys.html
The license was owned by
> From: Carl Fink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:21 PM
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> > IIRC one of the algorithms that can be used in zip is
> > lzw which is (or was) patented.
>
> The patent expired in 2003.
>
> http:/
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> IIRC one of the algorithms that can be used in zip is lzw which is (or
> was) patented.
The patent expired in 2003.
http://www.sslug.dk/patent/lzwunisys.html
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL P
Seth Goodman wrote:
> I know this is a Debian list, but there is Windows tool called 7-zip
> that is distributed under the LGPL that can deal with zip, tar, gz and
> bz2. This makes me suspect that there cannot be any patent hindrances
> to the zip format itself.
IIRC one of the algorithms th
Seth Goodman wrote:
From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:49 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RAR under linux: any alternative?
Mike McCarty wrote:
It is distributed with a BSD like license. IOW, you can
redistribute, and source is
> From: Seth Goodman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:02 PM
>
>
> I know this is a Debian list, but there is Windows tool called 7-zip
There is a port of this tool in Debian unstable
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/utils/p7zip so hopefully this at
least provides
> From: Steve Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: RAR under linux: any alternative?
>
>
> Mike McCarty wrote:
> > It is distributed with a BSD like license. IOW, you can
>
Mike McCarty wrote:
> It is distributed with a BSD like license. IOW, you can redistribute,
> and source is available, but they retain rights. But no charge
> (unless you meant something different by the term "free").
Free of patent and royalty issues which ZIP is not entirely. :)
--
Steve Lamb wrote:
Alex Malinovich wrote:
This is a good point. But this is also not a feature specific to RAR, as
you point out. Zip archives, among others, can do this as well.
But you weren't talking zip. 'sides, not that zip is any freer than RAR,
at least not to my knowledge. Feel
Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 21:47 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
--snip--
[snip]
To put it another way, are you aware that hard discs have redundancy
in them to allow one to recover corrupted sectors? By your reasoning,
this could not be put on the same disc, it would have to be
Alex Malinovich wrote:
> Steve, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from referring to me
> explicitly by name. Establishing a false sense of familiarity,
No familiarity at all. It's called getting your attention since it seems
to be wandering.
> tar cf - *.png | split -b 1m
> for i in
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 22:49 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
--snip--
> Yes, Alex, and you're showing your ignorance again.
Steve, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from referring to me
explicitly by name. Establishing a false sense of familiarity,
particularly in a discussion which is showin
Alex Malinovich wrote:
> This is a good point. But this is also not a feature specific to RAR, as
> you point out. Zip archives, among others, can do this as well.
But you weren't talking zip. 'sides, not that zip is any freer than RAR,
at least not to my knowledge. Feel free to point out if
Alex Malinovich wrote:
> This is all assuming that the portion of the file that got corrupted
> ISN'T the portion storing the checksum data. If it is, the file is of no
> use to you.
*sigh* As you said, it doesn't matter what is corrupt if there is
corruption. But this is a far sight better
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 21:47 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
--snip--
> This is not quite true. Usually, with a disc file or a file transmitted
> over a link of some sort, a block of bytes gets corrupted, usually with
> a size on the order of 1KB. If an archive is much larger than 1KB (the
> usual case,
Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:51 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Alex Malinovich wrote:
--snip--
I've refrained from joining in, so far, but I just can't
resist :-)
I don't know, maybe I'm just dense or something, but explain to me why
you would WANT to put that information i
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:51 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Alex Malinovich wrote:
--snip--
> > I don't know, maybe I'm just dense or something, but explain to me why
> > you would WANT to put that information in the archive itself?
>
> What, the checksums? Uh, so the reference is where you need
Alex Malinovich wrote:
> That's why you include a checksums file with the archive set and/or list
> the sums at the point of origin (web site, FTP site, etc).
Which still tells you nothing of the files inside.
>>9. Added support of so called recovery volumes (.rev files), which can be used
>
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 16:15 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > The same way that RAR does. They tell you whether that discreet part of
> > the archive is corrupted or not. If it is corrupted it's just as useless
> > whether it's a RAR archive or any other type of archive.
>
>
Alex Malinovich wrote:
> The same way that RAR does. They tell you whether that discreet part of
> the archive is corrupted or not. If it is corrupted it's just as useless
> whether it's a RAR archive or any other type of archive.
Bzt, try again. I asked "against what". You create the archiv
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:35:32 -0600
Gnu-Raiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17:32, Sun 11 Dec 05, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 17:59 -0600, Gnu-Raiz wrote:
> > --snip--
> > > will probably laugh at you. How else are you going to get a
> > > uniform file size of say 15mb each in
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 08:00:45PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Sean Davis wrote:
> > split(1). Been around since AT&T Version 6.
>
> Now verify each portion has no errors in it with split. Oh, wait, ya
> can't. That's because it is just a rough split and not an actual archive
> which can be v
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 23:35 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > Well, just use md5sum, sha1sum, etc.
>
> Against what, exactly? How do these verify the contents within that
> discrete piece of the archive?
The same way that RAR does. They tell you whether that discreet p
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> Well, just use md5sum, sha1sum, etc.
Against what, exactly? How do these verify the contents within that
discrete piece of the archive?
> Or use .zip with zipsplit -n . . . I
> don't see that rar has any particular advantage there.
Point being was that split
On 17:32, Sun 11 Dec 05, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 17:59 -0600, Gnu-Raiz wrote:
> --snip--
> > will probably laugh at you. How else are you going to get a
> > uniform file size of say 15mb each in your sample if you
> > don't use rar?
>
> tar cz sample/ | split -db 15m - sampl
On Sunday 11 December 2005 21:00, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Sean Davis wrote:
> > split(1). Been around since AT&T Version 6.
>
> Now verify each portion has no errors in it with split. Oh, wait, ya
> can't. That's because it is just a rough split and not an actual archive
> which can be verified.
Sean Davis wrote:
> split(1). Been around since AT&T Version 6.
Now verify each portion has no errors in it with split. Oh, wait, ya
can't. That's because it is just a rough split and not an actual archive
which can be verified.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 05:59:41PM -0600, Gnu-Raiz wrote:
> On 11:49, Sun 11 Dec 05, John Hasler wrote:
> > Gnu_Raiz writes:
> > > This is one program that I believe is worth buying the license for. This
> > > is especially true if you have any windows machine's around. If you use
> > > Usenet for
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 17:59 -0600, Gnu-Raiz wrote:
--snip--
> will probably laugh at you. How else are you going to get a
> uniform file size of say 15mb each in your sample if you
> don't use rar?
tar cz sample/ | split -db 15m - sample.tar.gz
Would work just fine for me.
Or, if you have to use
On 11:49, Sun 11 Dec 05, John Hasler wrote:
> Gnu_Raiz writes:
> > This is one program that I believe is worth buying the license for. This
> > is especially true if you have any windows machine's around. If you use
> > Usenet for any amount of time you will find that this program is a must
> > hav
Jacob S wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:00:26 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve Kemp wrote:
apt-cache search rar unrar
Gives you this in the output:
unrar-free - Unarchiver for .rar files
unrar - Unarchiver for .rar files (non-free vers
Gnu-Raiz wrote:
The Window Version comes with the nice GUI, where as the
*nix version is only commandline. If one really needs the
GUI you can run it under wine.
You are one of those guys that like to complex their life just for fun? ;-)
You need to unrar a .rar file, and you will install an
John Hasler wrote:
Gnu_Raiz writes:
This is one program that I believe is worth buying the license for. This
is especially true if you have any windows machine's around. If you use
Usenet for any amount of time you will find that this program is a must
have.
Interesting. I've been on
Gnu_Raiz writes:
> This is one program that I believe is worth buying the license for. This
> is especially true if you have any windows machine's around. If you use
> Usenet for any amount of time you will find that this program is a must
> have.
Interesting. I've been on Usenet for twenty years
On 12:58, Sun 11 Dec 05, Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:35:35 -0300
> Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oliver Lupton wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:02:50 -0300
> > >Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Does anyone know a free software alternat
On 22:21, Sat 10 Dec 05, Jacob S wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:00:26 -0300
> Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Steve Kemp wrote:
>
> > > apt-cache search rar unrar
> > >
> > > Gives you this in the output:
> > >
> > > unrar-free - Unarchiver for .rar files
> > > unrar - Unarchiver fo
Micha Feigin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:35:35 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oliver Lupton wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:02:50 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know a free software alternative to RAR???
Use 'tar' combined with
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:35:35 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Lupton wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:02:50 -0300
> >Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Does anyone know a free software alternative to RAR???
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Use 'tar' combined with gzip or
On Saturday 10 December 2005 23:35, Gabriel wrote:
> >Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Does anyone know a free software alternative to RAR???
[snip]
You might try unrar-free.
Have fun
Eike
--
Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
Casilla de Correo 1519
Asuncion / Paraguay
Tel.: 595-21-578698 FAX: 595-21-
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:00:26 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Kemp wrote:
> > apt-cache search rar unrar
> >
> > Gives you this in the output:
> >
> > unrar-free - Unarchiver for .rar files
> > unrar - Unarchiver for .rar files (non-free version)
^
> Thank you so much
Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:02:50PM -0300, Gabriel написал:
Does anyone know a free software alternative to RAR???
apt-cache search rar|grep archiv
--
Regards , Anton Filippov .
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kemp wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:35:35PM -0300, Gabriel wrote:
yeah, I know that, but I was talking about a program to decompress RAR
files... I know I don't really need it, but today a friend sent me a rar
file and I needed to tell him to recompress it as zi
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:35:35 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah, I know that, but I was talking about a program to decompress RAR
> files...
Ah okay, I misinterpreted what you meant :)
Cheers,
-ol
--
I will live forever, or die trying.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:35:35PM -0300, Gabriel wrote:
>yeah, I know that, but I was talking about a program to decompress RAR
>files... I know I don't really need it, but today a friend sent me a rar
>file and I needed to tell him to recompress it as zip and send it
>again... (
Oliver Lupton wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:02:50 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know a free software alternative to RAR???
Use 'tar' combined with gzip or bzip2 to create a .tar.gz or .tar.bz2
man tar, man bzip2 and man gzip for more info :)
HTH
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:02:50 -0300
Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know a free software alternative to RAR???
Use 'tar' combined with gzip or bzip2 to create a .tar.gz or .tar.bz2
man tar, man bzip2 and man gzip for more info :)
HTH
-ol
--
I will live forever, or die trying
56 matches
Mail list logo