Menu
▾
▴
Re: [parchive-devel] Par2 Par3 comments.
|
From: Kristian T. <tre...@me...> - 2010-06-13 09:18:47
|
Mike Personally I just like the BSD-licenses a lot more than the GPL. I don't like being forced. Not to a proprietary model nor to an open sourced. As you say, the GPL forces people to open up any improvements, which I really think is bad. To me the GPL is as bad as a proprietary license. If you want to go open standard - go BSD. Remember GPL was created at a time were there where hostility towards open software. Therefore there was a great risk of people just taking your work, and putting it into proprietary software. If you wanted to create an open source community, open source had to be forced through. BSD - on the other hand - encourages to the best in people. It doesn't tie anyone to any specific licensing model. If you want to improve/adapt the sources for your proprietary needs - feel free. If you want to improve and redistribute - feel free. I have no personal interest in the licensing choice of PAR3. I agree that LPGL is sufficient, but I have been following the mailinglist for some years now, and I really believe, that if you want to extend PARs popularity beyond usenet, you should consider another license. As of today PAR2 is more or less a Usenet technology, but it's practical in so many other applications. I think the ISO standardization process - which was initiated for PAR2 - is a hugely great idea. I really believe you - the Parchive team - should aim at it again, once the PAR3 specifications is written, implemented and tested. I mean, how would you feel, if - as an example - NASA adopted it, and suddenly your technology was orbiting the earth? NASA already uses a modified Reed-Solomon algorithm for transferring data from space to earth. The PAR3 technology would fit in their pants if they could freely adopt it, and use it for data transfer. I know this is a far fetched example, but I do believe that governmental institutions like the military, would have far more confidence in using a technology like PAR3, if it was standardized and open. And that's not GPL. GPL is bad for technology, because - as you said - it forces people to redistribute any changes as source code. BSD is more lightheaded, and make people able to apply the technologies to whatever purpose they might have. There is a reason why Google releases their open sources as BSD. It's for the greater good of humanity. Not because they want to benefit from the improvements made outside Google. Hope I draw a clearer picture. Regards Kristian On 11/06/2010, at 19.48, Michael Nahas <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Re M. Niedermayer: > > TAR on Windows: Windows users have PkZip or other tools that can aggregate files and preserve permissions. > > 32-bit RS: You make good points. I think the question comes down to our goals with Par3 and how easy it is to support more slices. I think supporting more slices is better if we can do it well. Hopefully, the Bilski case will help us there by invalidating the LDPC software patents in the USA. (I know Europe doesn't support software patents. Don't know about Japan.) Tornado Codes can get by easily with an 8-bit Reed Solomon plus XOR. > > Unicode: Your comments appear to have been truncated after "2010". (Weird!) Can you repeat them? > > Your libraries: I don't know what makes a standard get adopted by people. For all I know, Par2 was accepted just because of the name. > > > Re: J. Cea: > > DVDisaster: First of all, great example of a use case. Yes, I agree with your (and DVDisaster's author's) point that TAR+PAR2 is not perfect for protecting data on a DVD. My question is, how easy is this to add to PAR? I don't know anything about ISO files. I've always thought of PAR as one of the UNIX pipe-able command line tools, like "tar c file1.txt file2.txt | par c -- -- > foo.par2". Unless there is a good library for working with ISO files or a trick, like filling up an ISO with a dummy PAR file and then overwriting the file contents with the PAR data, I think it is not a use case we should consider. (I don't like ignoring it though; I use TAR+PAR on a DVD for my backups.) > > > Re K. Trenskow: > > Licensing: You didn't make your reasoning clear. > I work with the specifications, which I believe use a Gnu document license. > I think the best design for the reference code is a LGPLed library + a GPLed command-line program that just processed arguments and calls the library. The LGPL is nice since it forces people to make public any improvements to the library, without having to make their entire program public. And the LGPL/GPL only applies to the code; someone else can write their own code from fresh that implements the standard without having to release any of their code. > If that's isn't good enough for you, can you state explicitly what your problem is with the LGPL or GPL and say why the BSD license is better? (BTW, if we change away from a Gnu license now, we have to either get permission from every author or start the Par3 reference code from scratch.) > > > Any more use-cases or goals? > > Comments & criticism always welcome. > > Mike > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Kristian Trenskow <tre...@me...> wrote: > Please... No matter what you do, please consider the licensing issues > in context of using bringing TAR. As far as I am aware, TAR is GPL'ed. > So please do a recode, in order to make it BSD-license compatible. It > would be wise not to GPL the code - as PAR2 is. If you guys want to > ISO standardize PAR3, you probably should go with a BSD-licensed > reference code. > > // Kristian Trenskow > > On 11/06/2010, at 17.27, Jesus Cea <jc...@jc...> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 10/06/10 02:34, Michael Nahas wrote: > >> * Use with CD/DVD/? disk images. (Again can this be solved with > >> TAR?) > > > > I would something like <http://dvdisaster.net/en/> standarized. > > > > Compared with TAR, it protects all the block of the DVD, so you can > > recover the data even if the directory blocks are bad (something you > > can > > not do with a TAR+PAR2). Also, you are protecting media blocks, so > > content and structure (filesystem) are transparent. > > > > - -- > > Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ > > jc...@jc... - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ > > _/ > > jabber / xmpp:jc...@ja... _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ > > . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ > > "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ > > "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ > > "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > > > iQCVAwUBTBJV45lgi5GaxT1NAQJhEgQAk/TxiWzRGwrGYra+K+wmUsGwCT0WhXAj > > UipjqDII8W3NtKGnNP8SLqCoz2hEQ+W7P21QVMWxWS7/v8o2e44Wfq+n8x9EToKi > > DJ5DOYOXhnj4ryFrBxjlXbfn2nhLMXXsiXXUi4OwHAM83UWG41t8ZKaYifZW5AiB > > fLJmjDLULRQ= > > =T54P > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > --- > > --- > > --- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > > _______________________________________________ > > Parchive-devel mailing list > > Par...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/parchive-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > _______________________________________________ > Parchive-devel mailing list > Par...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/parchive-devel > |
