On 2018-04-05 at 09:08, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> maybe 2.0 to keep it
>> short and simple.
>
> I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code
> with pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it
> compatible with gzip and/
Sorry, in my excitement, I sent my last mail without looking at what I
wanted to say/ask in my first draft:
I’m not sure of recalling or understanding fully, but isn’t pigz
somewhat linked with Zlib/Zlib code? and Zlib not being GNU, what would
that mean? would it have to be separated? would gzip
pigz isn’t under GPL either. It has the same zlib license that zlib has.
Interestingly the “zlib license” has become a thing onto itself and used by
others, as one of the approved licenses by FSF and OSI. FSF calls the zlib
license “GPL compatible”, whatever that means.
For pigz to eventually r
Just as a heads-up, I've assigned to some of my students the job of
rewriting gzip to use zlib; other way of putting it is to redo pigz to
be as gzip-compatible as possible and to make it as portable as possible
to non-POSIX environments. Early days yet.
