Xref: utzoo gnu.emacs.help:1622 comp.emacs:10444 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unreplyable!garbage From: rms@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help,comp.emacs Subject: compress Message-ID: <9103311918.AA27156@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: 31 Mar 91 19:18:17 GMT Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Followup-To: gnu.emacs.help Distribution: world Organization: Gatewayed from the GNU Project mailing list help-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu Lines: 33 >It's not a good idea for people to introduce further use of compress, >because it's patented, and Unisys wants us to pay for the privilege. HUH? Last I heard, they didn't care about software implementations -- they were concerned with hardware ones. I became concerned about use of compress when Unisys told the POSIX committee that the implementors of POSIX systems (of which the GNU project might be one) would have to pay royalties for use of LZW. There was a time when (it seemed) Unisys planned to attack only hardware implementations, but that was some years ago. James Woods told me that even at that time, their lawyer said that demanding royalties from individual end users of compress would be an "enforcement problem". In other words, only practical difficulties would stop Unisys from doing just that! Luckily, compress has been removed from the POSIX spec. However, as long as users keep using compress, they will give other users a reason to use it, which means the community won't be free of danger from it. The FSF will switch over to one of Bernstein's programs soon unless a better alternative matures sooner. Even if/when it existed, the intention to leave software implementations alone was just a policy--something they were able to change at any time, and did. This shows the danger of relying on the forebearance of a corporation: it will last only as long as it is expedient. The only way we can be safe is not to give them the power to interfere with our work.