head	1.5;
access;
symbols
	RELENG_8_4:1.5.0.2
	RELENG_9_1_0_RELEASE:1.2.42.2.2.2
	RELENG_9_1:1.2.42.2.0.2
	RELENG_9_1_BP:1.2.42.2
	RELENG_8_3_0_RELEASE:1.2.36.2.2.1
	RELENG_8_3:1.2.36.2.0.2
	RELENG_8_3_BP:1.2.36.2
	RELENG_9_0_0_RELEASE:1.2.42.1.2.1
	RELENG_9_0:1.2.42.1.0.2
	RELENG_9_0_BP:1.2.42.1
	RELENG_9:1.2.0.42
	RELENG_9_BP:1.2
	RELENG_7_4_0_RELEASE:1.2.40.1
	RELENG_8_2_0_RELEASE:1.2.36.1.6.1
	RELENG_7_4:1.2.0.40
	RELENG_7_4_BP:1.2
	RELENG_8_2:1.2.36.1.0.6
	RELENG_8_2_BP:1.2.36.1
	RELENG_8_1_0_RELEASE:1.2.36.1.4.1
	RELENG_8_1:1.2.36.1.0.4
	RELENG_8_1_BP:1.2.36.1
	RELENG_7_3_0_RELEASE:1.2.38.1
	RELENG_7_3:1.2.0.38
	RELENG_7_3_BP:1.2
	RELENG_8_0_0_RELEASE:1.2.36.1.2.1
	RELENG_8_0:1.2.36.1.0.2
	RELENG_8_0_BP:1.2.36.1
	RELENG_8:1.2.0.36
	RELENG_8_BP:1.2
	RELENG_7_2_0_RELEASE:1.2.34.1
	RELENG_7_2:1.2.0.34
	RELENG_7_2_BP:1.2
	RELENG_7_1_0_RELEASE:1.2.32.1
	RELENG_6_4_0_RELEASE:1.2.30.1
	RELENG_7_1:1.2.0.32
	RELENG_7_1_BP:1.2
	RELENG_6_4:1.2.0.30
	RELENG_6_4_BP:1.2
	RELENG_7_0_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_6_3_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_7_0:1.2.0.28
	RELENG_7_0_BP:1.2
	RELENG_6_3:1.2.0.26
	RELENG_6_3_BP:1.2
	RELENG_7:1.2.0.24
	RELENG_7_BP:1.2
	RELENG_6_2_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_6_2:1.2.0.22
	RELENG_6_2_BP:1.2
	RELENG_5_5_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_5_5:1.2.0.20
	RELENG_5_5_BP:1.2
	RELENG_6_1_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_6_1:1.2.0.18
	RELENG_6_1_BP:1.2
	RELENG_6_0_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_6_0:1.2.0.16
	RELENG_6_0_BP:1.2
	RELENG_6:1.2.0.14
	RELENG_6_BP:1.2
	RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_5_4:1.2.0.12
	RELENG_5_4_BP:1.2
	RELENG_4_11_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_11:1.1.1.1.0.32
	RELENG_4_11_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_5_3_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_5_3:1.2.0.10
	RELENG_5_3_BP:1.2
	RELENG_5:1.2.0.8
	RELENG_5_BP:1.2
	RELENG_4_10_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_10:1.1.1.1.0.30
	RELENG_4_10_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_5_2_1_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_5_2_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_5_2:1.2.0.6
	RELENG_5_2_BP:1.2
	RELENG_4_9_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_9:1.1.1.1.0.28
	RELENG_4_9_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_5_1_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_5_1:1.2.0.4
	RELENG_5_1_BP:1.2
	RELENG_4_8_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_8:1.1.1.1.0.26
	RELENG_4_8_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_5_0_0_RELEASE:1.2
	RELENG_5_0:1.2.0.2
	RELENG_5_0_BP:1.2
	RELENG_4_7_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_7:1.1.1.1.0.24
	RELENG_4_7_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_6_2_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_6_1_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_6_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_6:1.1.1.1.0.22
	RELENG_4_6_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_5_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_5:1.1.1.1.0.20
	RELENG_4_5_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_4_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_4:1.1.1.1.0.18
	RELENG_4_4_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_3_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_3:1.1.1.1.0.16
	RELENG_4_3_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_2_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_1_1_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	PRE_SMPNG:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_1_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3_5_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4_0_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_4:1.1.1.1.0.14
	RELENG_4_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3_4_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3_3_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3_2_PAO:1.1.1.1.0.12
	RELENG_3_2_PAO_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3_2_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3_1_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3:1.1.1.1.0.10
	RELENG_3_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2_8_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_3_0_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2_7_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2_6_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2_5_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2_2_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2_1_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_1_7_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_1_6_1_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_1_6_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_2:1.1.1.1.0.8
	RELENG_2_2_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_1_5_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_1_0_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_1_0:1.1.1.1.0.6
	RELENG_2_1_0_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_0_5_RELEASE:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_0_5:1.1.1.1.0.4
	RELENG_2_0_5_BP:1.1.1.1
	RELENG_2_0_5_ALPHA:1.1.1.1
	RELEASE_2_0:1.1.1.1
	BETA_2_0:1.1.1.1
	ALPHA_2_0:1.1.1.1.0.2
	bsd_44_lite:1.1.1.1
	CSRG:1.1.1;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.5
date	2012.11.17.01.54.17;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches
	1.5.2.1;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2011.11.11.22.27.09;	author eadler;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2011.10.16.14.30.28;	author eadler;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2002.10.16.12.42.15;	author charnier;	state Exp;
branches
	1.2.14.1
	1.2.24.1
	1.2.30.1
	1.2.32.1
	1.2.34.1
	1.2.36.1
	1.2.38.1
	1.2.40.1
	1.2.42.1;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	94.05.27.12.30.58;	author rgrimes;	state Exp;
branches
	1.1.1.1;
next	;

1.5.2.1
date	2012.11.17.01.54.17;	author svnexp;	state dead;
branches;
next	1.5.2.2;

1.5.2.2
date	2013.03.28.13.06.01;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.14.1
date	2012.11.17.07.45.37;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.24.1
date	2012.01.05.04.50.10;	author eadler;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2.24.2;

1.2.24.2
date	2012.11.17.08.08.23;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.30.1
date	2008.10.02.02.57.24;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.32.1
date	2008.11.25.02.59.29;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.34.1
date	2009.04.15.03.14.26;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.36.1
date	2009.08.03.08.13.06;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches
	1.2.36.1.2.1
	1.2.36.1.4.1
	1.2.36.1.6.1;
next	1.2.36.2;

1.2.36.2
date	2012.01.05.04.50.28;	author eadler;	state Exp;
branches
	1.2.36.2.2.1;
next	1.2.36.3;

1.2.36.3
date	2012.11.17.10.37.16;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.36.1.2.1
date	2009.10.25.01.10.29;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.36.1.4.1
date	2010.06.14.02.09.06;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.36.1.6.1
date	2010.12.21.17.09.25;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.36.2.2.1
date	2012.03.03.06.15.13;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2.36.2.2.2;

1.2.36.2.2.2
date	2012.11.17.08.25.49;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.38.1
date	2010.02.10.00.26.20;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.40.1
date	2010.12.21.17.10.29;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2.40.2;

1.2.40.2
date	2012.11.17.08.17.41;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.42.1
date	2011.09.23.00.51.37;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches
	1.2.42.1.2.1;
next	1.2.42.2;

1.2.42.2
date	2012.01.04.03.37.41;	author eadler;	state Exp;
branches
	1.2.42.2.2.1;
next	1.2.42.3;

1.2.42.3
date	2012.11.17.11.37.38;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.42.1.2.1
date	2011.11.11.04.20.22;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2.42.1.2.2;

1.2.42.1.2.2
date	2012.11.17.08.37.34;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.2.42.2.2.1
date	2012.08.05.23.54.33;	author kensmith;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2.42.2.2.2;

1.2.42.2.2.2
date	2012.11.17.08.48.25;	author svnexp;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;

1.1.1.1
date	94.05.27.12.30.59;	author rgrimes;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@@


1.5
log
@Switching exporter and resync
@
text
@
  $FreeBSD: head/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 227458 2011-11-11 22:27:09Z eadler $

From: James A. Woods <jaw@@eos.arc.nasa.gov>

>From vn Fri Dec  2 18:05:27 1988
Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA
Newsgroups: sci.crypt

# Illegitimi noncarborundum

Patents are a tar pit.

A good case can be made that most are just a license to sue, and nothing
is illegal until a patent is upheld in court.

For example, if you receive netnews by means other than 'nntp',
these very words are being modulated by 'compress',
a variation on the patented Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm.

Original Ziv-Lempel is patent number 4,464,650, and the more powerful
LZW method is #4,558,302.  Yet despite any similarities between 'compress'
and LZW (the public-domain 'compress' code was designed and given to the
world before the ink on the Welch patent was dry), no attorneys from Sperry
(the assignee) have asked you to unplug your Usenet connection.

Why?  I can't speak for them, but it is possible the claims are too broad,
or, just as bad, not broad enough.  ('compress' does things not mentioned
in the Welch patent.)  Maybe they realize that they can commercialize
LZW better by selling hardware implementations rather than by licensing
software.  Again, the LZW software delineated in the patent is *not*
the same as that of 'compress'.

At any rate, court-tested software patents are a different animal;
corporate patents in a portfolio are usually traded like baseball cards
to shut out small fry rather than actually be defended before
non-technical juries.  Perhaps RSA will undergo this test successfully,
although the grant to "exclude others from making, using, or selling"
the invention would then only apply to the U.S. (witness the 
Genentech patent of the TPA molecule in the U.S. but struck down
in Great Britain as too broad.)

The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".
Apparently this all changed in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) when the U. S. Supreme
Court reversed itself.  

Scholars should consult the excellent article in the Washington and Lee
Law Review (fall 1984, vol. 41, no. 4) by Anthony and Colwell for a
comprehensive survey of an area which will remain murky for some time.

Until the dust clears, how you approach ideas which are patented depends
on how paranoid you are of a legal onslaught.  Arbitrary?  Yes.  But
the patent bar of the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
thanks you for any uncertainty as they, at least, stand to gain
from any trouble.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: James A. Woods <jaw@@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA (actually 'compress' patents)

	In article <2042@@eos.UUCP> you write:
	>The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
	>that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".

A rule of thumb that has never been completely valid, as any chemical
engineer can tell you.  (Chemical processes were among the earliest patents,
as I recall.)

	ah yes -- i date myself when relaying out-of-date advice from elderly
	attorneys who don't even specialize in patents.  one other interesting
	class of patents include the output of optical lens design programs,
	which yield formulae which can then fairly directly can be molded
	into glass.  although there are restrictions on patenting equations,
	the "embedded systems" seem to fly past the legal gauntlets.

	anyway, I'm still learning about intellectual property law after
	several conversations from a Unisys (nee sperry) lawyer re 'compress'.

	it's more complicated than this, but they're letting (oral
	communication only) software versions of 'compress' slide
	as far as licensing fees go.  this includes 'arc', 'stuffit',
	and other commercial wrappers for 'compress'.  yet they are
	signing up licensees for hardware chips.  Hewlett-Packard
	supposedly has an active vlsi project, and Unisys has
	board-level LZW-based tape controllers.  (to build LZW into
	a disk controller would be strange, as you'd have to build
	in a filesystem too!)

 	it's byzantine
	that Unisys is in a tiff with HP regarding the patents,
	after discovering some sort of "compress" button on some
	HP terminal product.  why?  well, professor Abraham Lempel jumped
	from being department chairman of computer science at technion in
	Israel to sperry (where he got the first patent), but then to work
	at Hewlett-Packard on sabbatical.  the second Welch patent
	is only weakly derivative of the first, so they want chip
	licenses and HP relented.  however, everyone agrees something
	like the current Unix implementation is the way to go with
	software, so HP (and UCB) long ago asked spencer Thomas and i to sign
	off on copyright permission (although they didn't need to, it being pd).
	Lempel, HP, and Unisys grumbles they can't make money off the
	software since a good free implementation (not the best --
	i have more ideas!) escaped via Usenet.  (Lempel's own pascal
	code was apparently horribly slow.)
	i don't follow the IBM 'arc' legal bickering; my impression
	is that the pc folks are making money off the archiver/wrapper
	look/feel of the thing [if ms-dos can be said to have a look and feel]. 

	now where is telebit with the compress firmware?  in a limbo
	netherworld, probably, with sperry still welcoming outfits
	to sign patent licenses, a common tactic to bring other small fry
	into the fold.  the guy who crammed 12-bit compress into the modem
	there left.  also what is transpiring with 'compress' and sys 5 rel 4?
	beats me, but if sperry got a hold of them on these issues,
	at&t would likely re-implement another algorithm if they
	thought 'compress' infringes.  needful to say, i don't think
	it does after the above mentioned legal conversation.
	my own beliefs on whether algorithms should be patentable at all
	change with the weather.  if the courts finally nail down
	patent protection for algorithms, academic publication in
	textbooks will be somewhat at odds with the engineering world,
	where the textbook codes will simply be a big tease to get
	money into the patent holder coffers...

	oh, if you implement LZW from the patent, you won't get
	good rates because it doesn't mention adaptive table reset,
	lack thereof being *the* serious deficiency of Thomas' first version.

	now i know that patent law generally protects against independent
	re-invention (like the 'xor' hash function pleasantly mentioned
	in the patent [but not the paper]).
	but the upshot is that if anyone ever wanted to sue us,
	we're partially covered with
	independently-developed twists, plus the fact that some of us work
	in a bureaucratic morass (as contractor to a public agency in my case).

	quite a mess, huh?  I've wanted to tell someone this stuff
	for a long time, for posterity if nothing else.

james 

@


1.5.2.1
log
@file NOTES was added on branch RELENG_8_4 on 2013-03-28 13:06:01 +0000
@
text
@d1 142
@


1.5.2.2
log
@## SVN ## Exported commit - http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/248810
## SVN ## CVS IS DEPRECATED: http://wiki.freebsd.org/CvsIsDeprecated
@
text
@a0 142

  $FreeBSD: releng/8.4/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 229559 2012-01-05 04:50:28Z eadler $

From: James A. Woods <jaw@@eos.arc.nasa.gov>

>From vn Fri Dec  2 18:05:27 1988
Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA
Newsgroups: sci.crypt

# Illegitimi noncarborundum

Patents are a tar pit.

A good case can be made that most are just a license to sue, and nothing
is illegal until a patent is upheld in court.

For example, if you receive netnews by means other than 'nntp',
these very words are being modulated by 'compress',
a variation on the patented Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm.

Original Ziv-Lempel is patent number 4,464,650, and the more powerful
LZW method is #4,558,302.  Yet despite any similarities between 'compress'
and LZW (the public-domain 'compress' code was designed and given to the
world before the ink on the Welch patent was dry), no attorneys from Sperry
(the assignee) have asked you to unplug your Usenet connection.

Why?  I can't speak for them, but it is possible the claims are too broad,
or, just as bad, not broad enough.  ('compress' does things not mentioned
in the Welch patent.)  Maybe they realize that they can commercialize
LZW better by selling hardware implementations rather than by licensing
software.  Again, the LZW software delineated in the patent is *not*
the same as that of 'compress'.

At any rate, court-tested software patents are a different animal;
corporate patents in a portfolio are usually traded like baseball cards
to shut out small fry rather than actually be defended before
non-technical juries.  Perhaps RSA will undergo this test successfully,
although the grant to "exclude others from making, using, or selling"
the invention would then only apply to the U.S. (witness the 
Genentech patent of the TPA molecule in the U.S. but struck down
in Great Britain as too broad.)

The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".
Apparently this all changed in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) when the U. S. Supreme
Court reversed itself.  

Scholars should consult the excellent article in the Washington and Lee
Law Review (fall 1984, vol. 41, no. 4) by Anthony and Colwell for a
comprehensive survey of an area which will remain murky for some time.

Until the dust clears, how you approach ideas which are patented depends
on how paranoid you are of a legal onslaught.  Arbitrary?  Yes.  But
the patent bar of the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
thanks you for any uncertainty as they, at least, stand to gain
from any trouble.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: James A. Woods <jaw@@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA (actually 'compress' patents)

	In article <2042@@eos.UUCP> you write:
	>The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
	>that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".

A rule of thumb that has never been completely valid, as any chemical
engineer can tell you.  (Chemical processes were among the earliest patents,
as I recall.)

	ah yes -- i date myself when relaying out-of-date advice from elderly
	attorneys who don't even specialize in patents.  one other interesting
	class of patents include the output of optical lens design programs,
	which yield formulae which can then fairly directly can be molded
	into glass.  although there are restrictions on patenting equations,
	the "embedded systems" seem to fly past the legal gauntlets.

	anyway, I'm still learning about intellectual property law after
	several conversations from a Unisys (nee sperry) lawyer re 'compress'.

	it's more complicated than this, but they're letting (oral
	communication only) software versions of 'compress' slide
	as far as licensing fees go.  this includes 'arc', 'stuffit',
	and other commercial wrappers for 'compress'.  yet they are
	signing up licensees for hardware chips.  Hewlett-Packard
	supposedly has an active vlsi project, and Unisys has
	board-level LZW-based tape controllers.  (to build LZW into
	a disk controller would be strange, as you'd have to build
	in a filesystem too!)

 	it's byzantine
	that Unisys is in a tiff with HP regarding the patents,
	after discovering some sort of "compress" button on some
	HP terminal product.  why?  well, professor Abraham Lempel jumped
	from being department chairman of computer science at technion in
	Israel to sperry (where he got the first patent), but then to work
	at Hewlett-Packard on sabbatical.  the second Welch patent
	is only weakly derivative of the first, so they want chip
	licenses and HP relented.  however, everyone agrees something
	like the current Unix implementation is the way to go with
	software, so HP (and UCB) long ago asked spencer Thomas and i to sign
	off on copyright permission (although they didn't need to, it being pd).
	Lempel, HP, and Unisys grumbles they can't make money off the
	software since a good free implementation (not the best --
	i have more ideas!) escaped via Usenet.  (Lempel's own pascal
	code was apparently horribly slow.)
	i don't follow the IBM 'arc' legal bickering; my impression
	is that the pc folks are making money off the archiver/wrapper
	look/feel of the thing [if ms-dos can be said to have a look and feel]. 

	now where is telebit with the compress firmware?  in a limbo
	netherworld, probably, with sperry still welcoming outfits
	to sign patent licenses, a common tactic to bring other small fry
	into the fold.  the guy who crammed 12-bit compress into the modem
	there left.  also what is transpiring with 'compress' and sys 5 rel 4?
	beats me, but if sperry got a hold of them on these issues,
	at&t would likely re-implement another algorithm if they
	thought 'compress' infringes.  needful to say, i don't think
	it does after the above mentioned legal conversation.
	my own beliefs on whether algorithms should be patentable at all
	change with the weather.  if the courts finally nail down
	patent protection for algorithms, academic publication in
	textbooks will be somewhat at odds with the engineering world,
	where the textbook codes will simply be a big tease to get
	money into the patent holder coffers...

	oh, if you implement LZW from the patent, you won't get
	good rates because it doesn't mention adaptive table reset,
	lack thereof being *the* serious deficiency of Thomas' first version.

	now i know that patent law generally protects against independent
	re-invention (like the 'xor' hash function pleasantly mentioned
	in the patent [but not the paper]).
	but the upshot is that if anyone ever wanted to sue us,
	we're partially covered with
	independently-developed twists, plus the fact that some of us work
	in a bureaucratic morass (as contractor to a public agency in my case).

	quite a mess, huh?  I've wanted to tell someone this stuff
	for a long time, for posterity if nothing else.

james 

@


1.4
log
@SVN rev 227458 on 2011-11-11 22:27:09Z by eadler

- add a missing "be" and "in"
- fix other errors introduced when committing r226436
- add 'function' to a sentence where it makes sense

Submitted by:	delphij
Submitted by:	dougb
Submitted by:	jhb
Approved by:	dougb
Approved by:	jhb
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD$
@


1.3
log
@SVN rev 226436 on 2011-10-16 14:30:28Z by eadler

- change "is is" to "is" or "it is"
- change "the the" to "the"

Approved by:	lstewart
Approved by:	sahil (mentor)
MFC after:	3 days
@
text
@d54 1
a54 1
the patent bar the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
@


1.2
log
@Spelling.
@
text
@d54 1
a54 1
the patent bar the the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
@


1.2.14.1
log
@Switch importer
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: stable/6/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 105236 2002-10-16 12:42:15Z charnier $
@


1.2.24.1
log
@SVN rev 229558 on 2012-01-05 04:50:10Z by eadler

MFC r227458, r226436:

- change "is is" to "is" or "it is"
- change "the the" to "the"
- other typo fixes

Approved by:	lstewart
@
text
@d54 1
a54 1
the patent bar of the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
@


1.2.24.2
log
@Switch importer
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: stable/7/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 229558 2012-01-05 04:50:10Z eadler $
@


1.2.42.1
log
@SVN rev 225736 on 2011-09-23 00:51:37Z by kensmith

Copy head to stable/9 as part of 9.0-RELEASE release cycle.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.42.2
log
@SVN rev 229461 on 2012-01-04 03:37:41Z by eadler

MFC r227458, r226436:

- change "is is" to "is" or "it is"
- change "the the" to "the"
- other typo fixes

Approved by:	lstewart
@
text
@d54 1
a54 1
the patent bar of the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
@


1.2.42.3
log
@## SVN ##
## SVN ## Exported commit - http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/ 242902
## SVN ## CVS IS DEPRECATED: http://wiki.freebsd.org/CvsIsDeprecated
## SVN ##
## SVN ## ------------------------------------------------------------------------
## SVN ## r242902 | dteske | 2012-11-11 23:29:45 +0000 (Sun, 11 Nov 2012) | 10 lines
## SVN ##
## SVN ## Fix a regression introduced by SVN r211417 that saw the breakage of a feature
## SVN ## documented in usr.sbin/sysinstall/help/shortcuts.hlp (reproduced below):
## SVN ##
## SVN ## If /usr/sbin/sysinstall is linked to another filename, say
## SVN ## `/usr/local/bin/configPackages', then the basename will be used
## SVN ## as an implicit command name.
## SVN ##
## SVN ## Reviewed by:	adrian (co-mentor)
## SVN ## Approved by:	adrian (co-mentor)
## SVN ##
## SVN ## ------------------------------------------------------------------------
## SVN ##
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: stable/9/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 229461 2012-01-04 03:37:41Z eadler $
@


1.2.42.2.2.1
log
@SVN rev 239080 on 2012-08-05 23:54:33Z by kensmith

Copy stable/9 to releng/9.1 as part of the 9.1-RELEASE release process.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.42.2.2.2
log
@Switch importer
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: releng/9.1/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 229461 2012-01-04 03:37:41Z eadler $
@


1.2.42.1.2.1
log
@SVN rev 227445 on 2011-11-11 04:20:22Z by kensmith

Copy stable/9 to releng/9.0 as part of the FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE release
cycle.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.42.1.2.2
log
@Switch importer
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: releng/9.0/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 105236 2002-10-16 12:42:15Z charnier $
@


1.2.40.1
log
@SVN rev 216618 on 2010-12-21 17:10:29Z by kensmith

Copy stable/7 to releng/7.4 in preparation for FreeBSD-7.4 release.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.40.2
log
@Switch importer
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: releng/7.4/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 105236 2002-10-16 12:42:15Z charnier $
@


1.2.38.1
log
@SVN rev 203736 on 2010-02-10 00:26:20Z by kensmith

Copy stable/7 to releng/7.3 as part of the 7.3-RELEASE process.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.36.1
log
@SVN rev 196045 on 2009-08-03 08:13:06Z by kensmith

Copy head to stable/8 as part of 8.0 Release cycle.

Approved by:	re (Implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.36.2
log
@SVN rev 229559 on 2012-01-05 04:50:28Z by eadler

MFC r227458, r226436:

- change "is is" to "is" or "it is"
- change "the the" to "the"
- other typo fixes

Approved by:	lstewart
@
text
@d54 1
a54 1
the patent bar of the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
@


1.2.36.3
log
@## SVN ##
## SVN ## Exported commit - http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/ 242909
## SVN ## CVS IS DEPRECATED: http://wiki.freebsd.org/CvsIsDeprecated
## SVN ##
## SVN ## ------------------------------------------------------------------------
## SVN ## r242909 | dim | 2012-11-12 07:47:19 +0000 (Mon, 12 Nov 2012) | 20 lines
## SVN ##
## SVN ## MFC r242625:
## SVN ##
## SVN ## Remove duplicate const specifiers in many drivers (I hope I got all of
## SVN ## them, please let me know if not).  Most of these are of the form:
## SVN ##
## SVN ## static const struct bzzt_type {
## SVN ##       [...list of members...]
## SVN ## } const bzzt_devs[] = {
## SVN ##       [...list of initializers...]
## SVN ## };
## SVN ##
## SVN ## The second const is unnecessary, as arrays cannot be modified anyway,
## SVN ## and if the elements are const, the whole thing is const automatically
## SVN ## (e.g. it is placed in .rodata).
## SVN ##
## SVN ## I have verified this does not change the binary output of a full kernel
## SVN ## build (except for build timestamps embedded in the object files).
## SVN ##
## SVN ## Reviewed by:	yongari, marius
## SVN ##
## SVN ## ------------------------------------------------------------------------
## SVN ##
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: stable/8/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 229559 2012-01-05 04:50:28Z eadler $
@


1.2.36.2.2.1
log
@SVN rev 232438 on 2012-03-03 06:15:13Z by kensmith

Copy stable/8 to releng/8.3 as part of 8.3-RELEASE release cycle.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.36.2.2.2
log
@Switch importer
@
text
@d2 1
a2 1
  $FreeBSD: releng/8.3/usr.bin/compress/doc/NOTES 229559 2012-01-05 04:50:28Z eadler $
@


1.2.36.1.6.1
log
@SVN rev 216617 on 2010-12-21 17:09:25Z by kensmith

Copy stable/8 to releng/8.2 in preparation for FreeBSD-8.2 release.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.36.1.4.1
log
@SVN rev 209145 on 2010-06-14 02:09:06Z by kensmith

Copy stable/8 to releng/8.1 in preparation for 8.1-RC1.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.36.1.2.1
log
@SVN rev 198460 on 2009-10-25 01:10:29Z by kensmith

Copy stable/8 to releng/8.0 as part of 8.0-RELEASE release procedure.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.34.1
log
@SVN rev 191087 on 2009-04-15 03:14:26Z by kensmith

Create releng/7.2 from stable/7 in preparation for 7.2-RELEASE.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.32.1
log
@SVN rev 185281 on 2008-11-25 02:59:29Z by kensmith

Create releng/7.1 in preparation for moving into RC phase of 7.1 release
cycle.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.2.30.1
log
@SVN rev 183531 on 2008-10-02 02:57:24Z by kensmith

Create releng/6.4 from stable/6 in preparation for 6.4-RC1.

Approved by:	re (implicit)
@
text
@@


1.1
log
@Initial revision
@
text
@d1 3
d77 2
a78 2
	anyway, i'm still learning about intellectual property law after
	several conversations from a unisys (nee sperry) lawyer re 'compress'.
d84 3
a86 3
	signing up licensees for hardware chips.  hewlett-packard
	supposedly has an active vlsi project, and unisys has
	board-level lzw-based tape controllers.  (to build lzw into
d91 1
a91 1
	that unisys is in a tiff with hp regarding the patents,
d93 1
a93 1
	hp terminal product.  why?  well, professor abraham lempel jumped
d95 2
a96 2
	israel to sperry (where he got the first patent), but then to work
	at hewlett-packard on sabbatical.  the second welch patent
d98 3
a100 3
	licenses and hp relented.  however, everyone agrees something
	like the current unix implementation is the way to go with
	software, so hp (and ucb) long ago asked spencer thomas and i to sign
d102 1
a102 1
	lempel, hp, and unisys grumbles they can't make money off the
d104 1
a104 1
	i have more ideas!) escaped via usenet.  (lempel's own pascal
d106 1
a106 1
	i don't follow the ibm 'arc' legal bickering; my impression
d113 1
a113 1
	into the fold.  the guy who crammed 12-bit compess into the modem
d118 1
a118 1
	it does after the abovementioned legal conversation.
d126 1
a126 1
	oh, if you implement lzw from the patent, you won't get
d128 1
a128 1
	lack thereof being *the* serious deficiency of thomas' first version.
d136 1
a136 1
	in a bureacratic morass (as contractor to a public agency in my case).
d138 1
a138 1
	quite a mess, huh?  i've wanted to tell someone this stuff
@


1.1.1.1
log
@BSD 4.4 Lite Usr.bin Sources
@
text
@@
