Re: [parchive-devel] Par2 Par3 comments.

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

PAR + TAR/PkZip: I agree with P. Cordes, tools for using TAR on Windows
exist, as do tools for using PkZip on Unixs (Unices?).  If someone needs
more than 2^16 files, they can use one of those.  We don't need to say
which.

Directories: The spec should probably be modified to support empty
directories.  P. Cordes says we also have a problem in the reference
implementation's support for directories.

32-bit RS: No clear answer yet.

UTF-8 Support: I wish it was easy as saying "Unicode has been around for
ages" to say that support exists.  Obviously, Java supports it.  It looks
like GNU has a C library.  (
http://www.gnu.org/software/libidn/manual/libidn.html#Utility-Functions)
However, since we have already have Unicode's 16-bit filenames as optional
feature, do we need need UTF-8 or just make the Unicode packet's manditory?

BSD vs. LGPL/GPL licence for reference implementation: First, this is the
reference implementation.  It should be clean and clear, not necessarily the
high-performance library used by everyone.  Second, as much as I try to work
on the spec and not the code, I think the license on the reference
implementation should change from the GPL to the LGPL or BSD.  This will
allow people to use the code in a dynamic library (*.DLL/*.so) and not have
to make public the source of their entire application.  (For the LGPL, they
would have to make public their changes to the library.)  Changing the
license will require either getting the permission of the authors of the
current reference code or starting a new reference implementation from
scratch.  As it is a reference implementation, and not necessarily a
high-performance implementation, I'd suggest the LGPL.  But I'm willing to
leave it up to the person who invests the time to write it.

[Side note: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/06/04/1953232  Looks
like Google released VP8 with a BSD license plus a separate patent license.
The patent license is voided if a company brings a patent suit against
Google.  Thus, if someone sues Google, Google is free to sue them back using
the VP8 patents.]

The important question, in my opinion, is what use cases should be aiming to
support?
* Usenet transmission of large files
* Multi-disk backup redundancy (e.g., burn 4 CDs, burn a 5th with redundant
data).
* ? redundancy for remote backups
* ? redundancy on single-disk backup (Already done by DVDisaster; we'd like
to support it, but there isn't an easy implementation yet.  Is this better
done by a filesystem?)
* ? redundancy for streaming (e.g., NASA transmissions)
* ? verification/redundancy for file distribution (stronger than just an MD5
check?)
Any others?  Any arguments in favor/against one of these?  Any ideas on how
to implement redundancy for a single-disk backup?  Should we have a sister
project for a user-level file system?  (Sounds expense with RS codes.)

Also, the Par2 spec included optional packets for containing input file
slices.  So, people would not have to use a file-splitter, like RAR, for
Usenet or multi-disk backups.  Do we want to push to make those packets
mandatory?

Mike Nahas

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer <mic...@gm...>wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:18:21AM +0200, Kristian Trenskow wrote:
> [....]
> > 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.
>
> NASA can internally use GPL software as they see fit, they would have
> no obligation to distribute source.
> Only if they distribute a binary to someone are they required to
> also make the source of the whole program available to her.
> note, IANAL of course so just my oppinon
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> btw, did you ever read the GPL?
>
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not
> or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and
> the brevity of human life -- Protagoras
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFMFabrYR7HhwQLD6sRAtxAAJ0d8PrecUfjtp0wP6Bykhgf+exEhACeIJoJ
> suVyiUAxD1nf5w7kK22xcW0=
> =5XnJ
> -----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
>
>