tech-pkg archive

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

Fwd: RE: szip license question

Binary packages for archivers/szip are a no-go.

I would suggest we encourage the use of libaec instead.?? It is intended to be a drop-in replacement.?? It is BSD-licensed and the dist contains a file patent.txt stating that the patent holder is no longer enforcing the patent.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	RE: szip license question
Date: 	Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:18:11 -0600
From: 	Joe Feeley <>
To: 'Jason Bacon' <>,,

Hi Jason,

No, this application of szip would circumvent our ability to restrict the use of its encryption capability, and we cannot allow it without a proper commercial license.

Best regards,

Joe Feeley

Joseph J. Feeley, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
PO Box 2236
2040 Warren Wagon Road
McCall, ID 83638
208 315 0029

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Bacon [] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 4:42 PM
Subject: szip license question

Good afternoon,

I am a pkgsrc developer creating many scientific packages for HPC.

There is an existing pkgsrc package for szip, but it is marked as "restricted" so that the system will not generate binary packages. This in turn prevents generating binary packages for dependent software (such as kallisto).

Looking at the license terms, it is not clear to me whether this is a necessary restriction. The license only discusses commercial use limitations and makes no mention of binary distribution.

Is it allowable to create a binary pkgsrc package to that users can install szip without compiling from source?

Thank you,


Earth is a beta site.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index