Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:30:09 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unzip utility choice decision Message-ID: <567D6F11.4040305@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <BAY169-W68135044614185DE64309CA7F80@phx.gbl> References: <BAY169-W9776556FEBDA58E22FA457A71A0@phx.gbl> <CAOc73CAWJd05L0P833XzmgMXuUDd3hX2ypcbUmQfNxCBoS2rHA@mail.gmail.com> <BAY169-W71CF3A8E16B1C9CD623C54A7E60@phx.gbl> <CAOc73CD0wUexp9JA4iEOW%2BqEPcCf7gfBhygLx_6WqNsAyCk1Yw@mail.gmail.com> <BAY169-W68135044614185DE64309CA7F80@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --jinVPajh47O4ihTeOFeUtv1gKkFE230ib Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 25/12/2015 08:58, Dangling Pointer wrote: >> The answer is of course for the more permissive license. > Is it? This is exactly what I have asked in first post: What is the > point of having another unzip utility with lesser implementation and > options, when we already have one. Is it because of license > differences? Yes/No (preferably in a non-sarcastic manner..) I am not > sure about the answer, that is why I am asking. Hmmm... except that the version of zip used by (most) Linux distros seems to be the one provided by Info-Zip, and that nowadays has a reasonably permissive license: http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/license.html The first two clauses are pretty much standard BSD licence; it's just the 3rd and 4th clauses protecting various names used by Info-Zip that are different. (Something that's normally handled separately by registering appropriate trademarks. Curious...) The reason for the difference between the various unzip programs is that the base system unzip(1) is built around libarchive -- see http://www.libarchive.org/ -- which also provides the BSD licensed versions of a number of other commands including tar(1) and cpio(1). So you can just point tar at a zip archive or a .iso image and list the contents or extract files, which is pretty handy. However libarchive doesn't provide the ability to write to a zip archive, and there are some newer zip formats it can't cope with at all. IIRC, you need the ports version of zip(1l)/unzip(1L) to handle zip64 format archives. So, while the answer /is/ about using a more permissive license, it's actually more to do with the licensing of tar(1) and cpio(1) where the alternatives are under the GPL -- unzip(1) is just there as a side effect, because it costs almost nothing to provide it. Cheers, Matthew --jinVPajh47O4ihTeOFeUtv1gKkFE230ib Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJWfW8XXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2NTNBNjhCOTEzQTRFNkNGM0UxRTEzMjZC QjIzQUY1MThFMUE0MDEzAAoJELsjr1GOGkATQwAQAJtTEAfKJS8mPWTbG9QG646D iOSu06+113uytm7HpWBZaSADyZLFgr7EFRNJ0GwZaB0yj+poJnMkg7PHreCF+6+7 ewVU0tSF+57a9v9+6rkqcd7aftPac4P7QBqn/7aNImrT2B5W4u4ypCvt7L0oSXbo rHusVQ9Qs1sd5AVX0NvY6iJwGnErTB+p2icmzvU48HyYH7ie6w1NmM1dKJW5Eeed 5Zue/tuj2BCnL6dkbfgIbeouhcpo0MIyezuXlU7117lohvqxiNCaQmP1T2VcYJUn hk6VctKpdqsBzjhxEW4S9O939cb8MZsLRahFhpk7anMBv+D26BbWvglk4mEToMD9 BZ2oUuYhJeEULmYRTMR2tDK/B3QZADk3leuRkialj1Mrzewc2gOwCM37ek9Q0e5S xkc2KXjebccOOLEtTjPDhPYsq2RJx5SUQ/6t9YAnEdQ0gJG0RDiCqfA5ohyUH6PD c9lGCyJOmlIWZpMJXnTD+kEEivG2y9SqmBIWVhekTT45f8lPZm2hNp21VjChaWev MNsDZ4I2H8jiQxTGT8W7E9K1rNy/W4I8m9IMAhg38JjLLU71RfES+gEKpSUpii8J l/w/9Tx2E19NQLs0sFyoK9JUQM7M6/hCItvd9HrFEO2w6iZ7coq3FK/CY5Oz9PDO 9i+VlLaJW+9zSAnrbeqe =HjEu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jinVPajh47O4ihTeOFeUtv1gKkFE230ib--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?567D6F11.4040305>