Fwd: RE: szip license question

[Jason Bacon <outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost>]

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 <joe.feeley%frontiernet.net@localhost>
To: 	'Jason Bacon' <bacon4000%gmail.com@localhost>, ics%ics-rhbd.com@localhost, 
help%hdfgroup.org@localhost
CC: 	lowell%lowellmiles.net@localhost



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
ICs, LLC
PO Box 2236
2040 Warren Wagon Road
McCall, ID 83638
208 315 0029



-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Bacon [mailto:bacon4000%gmail.com@localhost] Sent: Friday, April 19, 
2019 4:42 PM
To: ics%ics-rhbd.com@localhost; help%hdfgroup.org@localhost
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,

Jason

--
Earth is a beta site.