[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] lzip vs. xz
From: |
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos |
Subject: |
Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] lzip vs. xz |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:38:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120329 Icedove/10.0.3 |
On 04/19/2012 11:18 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>>>> The other was that the code was GPLv2-only
>>>>> It’s no longer the case.
>>>> But still it is GPLv2 and gnutls is LGPL.
>>> In the past GnuTLS-Extra existed precisely for this situation.
>>
>> Yes, but it no longer exists and I don't think it is a good idea to
>> move back to the dual library approach. Since faster algorithms than
>> LZO exist with more suitable licenses we might consider adding one of
>> those.
>
> What compressor do you have in mind? I guess the main criterion here is
> latency.
LZ4, at http://code.google.com/p/lz4/, although I have not tested it
a all, I'd be interested to see its interaction with TLS. The code looks
x86-centric though.
> FWIW, I find GPLv2+ perfectly suitable. When a feature gives a package
> an advantage, it may be a good strategy to use GPL instead of LGPL, as
> discussed in <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>.
This is a nice idea but I don't think it is applicable in this case
because there are quite a few non-gplv2 compressors. Moreover the
overhead of maintaining two libraries isn't worth it in my opinion.
regards,
Nikos