Releasing under the Zlib license?

[Lokathor]

Just wondering if you'd be interested in adding the Zlib license as a license option for this crate.

[oyvindln]

I wouldn't have any issue with that personally, but it would require getting permission from everone that have contributed. Is there any specificireason for wanting zlib in addition to the current licences?

[Lokathor]

Just that this is a zlib-format-processing library, so it would be nice to have the zlib license to go with it.

Personally I've switched to using Zlib over MIT and trying to promote its use because there's less attribution requirements if the code is packaged into a binary. I think that makes it easier for folks to distribute their binaries, particularly when many rust binaries end up incorporating 50+ crates (I've seen as high as 400).

[Frommi]

Yeah, I think that is a good idea.

[Lokathor]

Would still be interested if I started this PR?

I would suggest that the re-license process move the crate to Zlib OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT if we're going to do a re-license at all.

• Zlib for the niceness of being a zlib crate so we should support the Zlib license (as discussed)
• Apache-2.0 OR MIT because of course this is a rust crate and it is nice for users to also have the standard rust license pair available.

There is no actual harm in having more than one license option available, so that should be fine.

[Lokathor]

Update: the rust crate is now under zlib/apache2/mit, the C api wrapping it is not yet changed.

[Lokathor]

Update: miniz_oxide-0.4.3 is release with the additional license options