These licenses are practically identical, but one's marked as @FREE and the other isn't. Surely they should both be the same? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
The "donations" paragraph in PIGZ is informational only. So I wonder if it is even part of the license? If not, then the licenses are exactly identical and could be unified in one file.
I agree, we already have way too much license files, we should reduce them where we can and when the "real" license text is the same, we should unify them.
Created attachment 246345 [details] ZLIB license template If there are no objections, I'll replace licenses/ZLIB by attached file, and change all ebuilds using LICENSE="PIGZ" (it's only app-arch/pigz AFAICS) to LICENSE="ZLIB".
Ulrich, zlib uses "the authors" while pigz uses "the author". Perhaps the general license should say "the author(s)" or something?
(In reply to comment #3) > If there are no objections, I'll replace licenses/ZLIB by attached file, and > change all ebuilds using LICENSE="PIGZ" (it's only app-arch/pigz AFAICS) to > LICENSE="ZLIB". I just wanted to suggest something like that, but then you beat me to it ;) I support Alec's suggestion in comment #4.
(In reply to comment #4) > Ulrich, zlib uses "the authors" while pigz uses "the author". Perhaps the > general license should say "the author(s)" or something? Committed with this change. (In reply to comment #3) > If there are no objections, I'll replace licenses/ZLIB by attached file, > and change all ebuilds using LICENSE="PIGZ" (it's only app-arch/pigz > AFAICS) to LICENSE="ZLIB". CCing app-arch/pigz maintainer. Dror, is this o.k. with you?
app-arch/pigz updated to LICENSE="ZLIB".
