Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!simvax.labmed.umn.edu!davidli
From: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: What archiving format?
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.132443.1@simvax.labmed.umn.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 13:24:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: simvax.1991Jun27.132443.1
References: <3564@laura.UUCP> <1991Jun21.152722.17873@newcastle.ac.uk> <A0b7mrze@nathan.ruhr.de> <3580@laura.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.umn.edu (News administrator)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Flying Taoist Graphics
Lines: 16
Nntp-Posting-Host: simvax.labmed.umn.edu

In article <3580@laura.UUCP>, klute@tommy.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Rainer Klute) writes:
> Using LHarc of whatever
> version could only under the following conditions be tolerated:

Add to Rainer's list:

- The source code and executable code should be Public Domain (ie. no calls
  for Shareware fees involved)

One of the reasons I despise most of the LHarc versions is that their authors
are trying to make a buck while they introduce incompatibilities.  (The author
of xlharc 1.2 excluded from this list...)

-- 

David Paschall-Zimbel		davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu