[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RAR under linux: any alternative?

Seth Goodman wrote:
From: Steve Lamb [mailto:grey@dmiyu.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:49 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RAR under linux: any alternative?

Mike McCarty wrote:

It is distributed with a BSD like license. IOW, you can
redistribute, and source is available, but they retain
rights. But no charge (unless you meant something
different by the term "free").

   Free of patent and royalty issues which ZIP is not entirely.  :)

I know this is a Debian list, but there is Windows tool called 7-zip
that is distributed under the LGPL that can deal with zip, tar, gz and
bz2.  This makes me suspect that there cannot be any patent hindrances
to the zip format itself.  This tool, like RAR, can create a split
archive with whatever size the user specifies.  Zip files do have CRC's
for each file they contain that are made at the time of file
compression, and this is no different for RAR.  Only the formats
supported are different.  It also has support for rpm, deb and cab
files, and some support for decompressing RAR, but I haven't tried that.

Since my Windows and Debian boxes are connected through SAMBA, I have no
problem running the 7-zip tool on a Windows box and leaving the result

The ZOO program is also some sort of free source. I've used it under
MSDOS, VMS, HPUX, and Solaris. I dunno if this is the same thing I've
used, but I found this:


Anyway, here's a quote from the the full copyright notice for the
source I have...


2.   DISTRIBUTION IN UNMODIFIED FORM:  You may copy this software in
     unmodified form for any purpose, whether commercial or
     noncommercial, provided that you make no attempt to restrict
     distribution of it by others.


Anyone who wants a copy of the source I have may get it
by e-mailing me.

This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

Reply to: