Tim Kientzle wrote: > Chuck Swiger wrote: >> Mikhail Teterin wrote: >>> Reducing reliance on GNU software remains an extra bonus... >> >> Certainly, there exists GNU software which makes me cringe, but gzip >> isn't part of that group. I suppose there's a preference for >> BSD-licensed code rather than GPL'ed code, but I'd expect gzip and >> zlib to be a part of FreeBSD for the foreseeable future... > > Useful facts: > > * zlib is not GPLed. The license is essentially a BSD license. > <http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html> Sure, zlib and parts of gzip were written by JLG and Mark Adler using a close variant of the "new" BSD license. Depending on where you get your gzip from, add some public domain software (compress) and/or some GPL'ed code (mainly for the longopt calls like --best or --verbose). Does this affect whether adding bzip2 support to man is a good idea? > * There are both GPL and non-GPL versions of gzip. The > non-GPL version is based on zlib; the GPL version uses > its own separate compression/decompression code. > I believe OpenBSD uses the non-GPL gzip. OK. So there may be a pure BSD-licensed gzip handy, in addition to the one from the FSF. At the risk of distracting you from the licensing issues, fascinating as such things may be, would you care to express an opinion on the PR? :-) -- -Chuck PS: It's amazing what a really good lamb vindaloo will do....Received on Fri Sep 23 2005 - 02:46:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:44 UTC