CentOS - Apr 2015 - Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >
> > You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does
not forbid
> > this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be
linked
> > against any library under and license. If this was not thecase, you
could not
> > legally distribute binaries from GPLd programs.
>
> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole'
is
> covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between binary and
> source since one is derived from the other.
Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means....

Try to be clever and try to inform yourself before sending more fals claims as 
you did already.

Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the GPL.
If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is _very_
careful
about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to the 
"complete source". 

If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various comments 
from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for intentionally writing 
false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful interpretations if he 
is in a private discussion.
> >> > My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license
problem with it.
> >>
> >> Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.
> >
> > ???
>
> Odd, I expected you to be as smart as him.  He started with only the
> 'Artistic' license but quickly understood the issues when you need
> part of the 'work as a whole' to include, say, linking in a
> proprietary database driver as one component and GPL'd readline as
> another, along with the code he wanted to be generally usable.  And he
> did something about it.
The fact that there is GNU readline verifies that some people at FSF are in 
fact hostile against OSS. 

BTW: I don't need GNU readline as I have my owm history editor since August
1984 ;-)

And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL, so I was
able to write
a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX compliant).

> > Again, don't follow the agitation from OSS enemies. You are of
course wrong!
>
> You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase
'work as a whole'.
You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as you did 
before. The GPL does _not_  apply to _everything_. The GPL just applies to the 
"work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to include it
under _any_
license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did know that 
already.

There are parts in the GPL that read similar to: "under the terms and 
conditions of this license". These parts apply to GPL code only, but
enforce
all GPL rules.

There are other parts in th GPL that read similar to: "under the terms and 
conditions of paragraph xxx". And these parts just require you to follow
the
rules in the named part of the GPL but not to more! These parts apply to what 
the GPL addresses when speaking about the "complete source".

Fazit: The GPL does not require you to put everything under GPL. It just 
requires you to include makefiles, scripts and libraries under any license that 
permits redistribution.
> >> Question:  If _you_ believe that it is OK to mix your code with
GPL'd
> >> code, why not add the dual licensing statement  that would make it
> >> clear for everyone else?   It doesn't take anything away -
unless you
> >> really don't want it to be used in other projects.
> >
> > Why should I do something that is not needed?
>
> My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose anything but
the
> restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows
> you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't like the
> GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
> otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
> make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
> GPL'd.
If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because antisocial 
people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.

I would however risk that people send interesting patches as GPL only and this 
way prevent the freedom to use it by anybody.

> > But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to
first inform
> > yourself correctly.
> >
> >         I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.
>
> So, you really don't want your code to be used?    Then why ask why it
> isn't popular?
Please explain me why people believe RedHat or Centos is a good choice when 
there are people inside that write false claims on the GPL because they did not 
read it in a way that would allow them to understand the GPL?

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                    (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353
Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >>
>> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a
whole' is
>> covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between binary
and
>> source since one is derived from the other.
>
> Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means....
Apparently we live in different universes.  Or at least countries -
where meanings are relative.  But it doesn't matter how either of us
understand it, what matters are how the legal system understands it in
our native countries.
> Try to be clever and try to inform yourself before sending more fals claims
as
> you did already.
>
> Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the GPL.
> If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is _very_
careful
> about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to the
> "complete source".
Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the normal
interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
component with the same feature set.
> If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various
comments
> from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for intentionally
writing
> false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful interpretations if
he
> is in a private discussion.
No one is interested in setting themselves up for a legal challenge
with opposing views by experts.
> And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL, so I
was able to write
> a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX compliant).
Larry is a nice guy.  He doesn't want to cause trouble for anyone.
Apparently that's not universal....
>>
>> You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase
'work as a whole'.
>
> You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as you
did
> before. The GPL does _not_  apply to _everything_. The GPL just applies to
the
> "work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to include
it under _any_
> license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did know
that
> already.
It applies to everything copyright law applies to since it is really
copyright law that restricts distribution and the GPL simply provides
the exceptions.  There's a valid case for linked components to be
considered derivative works of each other if they require the other
for the work as a whole to be functional.
> Fazit: The GPL does not require you to put everything under GPL. It just
> requires you to include makefiles, scripts and libraries under any license
that
> permits redistribution.
Those are mentioned separately because they wouldn't be included as a
derivative work otherwise.
>> My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose anything
but the
>> restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license
allows
>> you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't like
the
>> GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
>> otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
>> make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
>> GPL'd.
>
> If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because
antisocial
> people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.
Beg your pardon?   You lost me here.  If you remove the reason for
exclusion, what evidence do you have that the work would still be
excluded, other than perhaps your long history of keeping it from
being usable?
> I would however risk that people send interesting patches as GPL only and
this
> way prevent the freedom to use it by anybody.
And that would be different how????    You can't use them now.  And
worse, you've severely restricted the number of people who might offer
patches regardless of the license.
>> > But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to
first inform
>> > yourself correctly.
>> >
>> >         I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.
>>
>> So, you really don't want your code to be used?    Then why ask why
it
>> isn't popular?
>
> Please explain me why people believe RedHat or Centos is a good choice when
> there are people inside that write false claims on the GPL because they did
not
> read it in a way that would allow them to understand the GPL?
How do you imagine such a 'false claim' affects anyone's use of
released code and source or why it would be a factor in their choice?
Personally I can't reconcile RedHat's restriction on redistributing
binaries with the GPL's prohibition on additional restrictions, but
Centos makes that a non-issue.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
       lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >>
> >> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a
whole' is
> >> covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between
binary and
> >> source since one is derived from the other.
> >
> > Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means....
>
> Apparently we live in different universes.  Or at least countries -
> where meanings are relative.  But it doesn't matter how either of us
> understand it, what matters are how the legal system understands it in
> our native countries.
NO, you just still do not understand the legal rules that apply. I recommend 
you to inform yourself about the rules that apply. Fortunately all serious 
lawyers basically say the same here...

> > Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the
GPL.
> > If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is
_very_ careful
> > about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to
the
> > "complete source".
>
> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the
normal
> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
> component with the same feature set.
You of yourse need to understand what this means in a legal context and not in 
kitchen english...
> > If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various
comments
> > from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for
intentionally writing
> > false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful
interpretations if he
> > is in a private discussion.
>
> No one is interested in setting themselves up for a legal challenge
> with opposing views by experts.
So could you please explain why all distros that asked specialized lawyers ship 
the original cdrtools and thos distros that do not did never ask a lawyer?
> > And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL,
so I was able to write
> > a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX
compliant).
>
> Larry is a nice guy.  He doesn't want to cause trouble for anyone.
> Apparently that's not universal....
I am also a nice guy who in interested in collaboration amongst OSS projects. 

BTW: I could relicense mkisofs to CDDL if I remove the apple HFS filesystem 
support. This is why the code originally from Eric Youngdale did drop much 
below 50%, it is even below 10%. I am a nice guy and leave things as they are 
as long as possible after I asked specialized lawyers. 

If you ask a lawyer, you will learn that you believed the wrong people before.
> > You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as
you did
> > before. The GPL does _not_  apply to _everything_. The GPL just
applies to the
> > "work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to
include it under _any_
> > license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did
know that
> > already.
>
> It applies to everything copyright law applies to since it is really
> copyright law that restricts distribution and the GPL simply provides
> the exceptions.  There's a valid case for linked components to be
> considered derivative works of each other if they require the other
> for the work as a whole to be functional.
Read the GPL, to learn that the GPL does not include the term
"linking". The
law applies instead and the law is related to the term "work" - not
linking.

I explained already, that every part of the GPL that uses GPLs own definition 
of a derivative work is void because it is in conflict with the law.

BTW: It seems to be a progress that you now admit that parts that are usable 
separately are independend works. This applies to the cdrtools. You just need 
to check the cdrtools instead of listening to the false claims from the 
anti-social people at Debian.


> >> My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose
anything but the
> >> restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual
license allows
> >> you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't
like the
> >> GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
> >> otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is
to
> >> make people choose between either using your code or anything that
is
> >> GPL'd.
> >
> > If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because
antisocial
> > people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.
>
> Beg your pardon?   You lost me here.  If you remove the reason for
> exclusion, what evidence do you have that the work would still be
> excluded, other than perhaps your long history of keeping it from
> being usable?
There _never_ was any reason for exclusion.

You should verify that you are serious with your claims and include the 
original cdrtools now since there is no reason for exclusion: the claimed 
problems do not exist and did never exist.

Let me give a hint on the true background: the license change towards CDDL was 
a reaction of the antisocial activities from Debian. Any person who is 
interested could check the true and not fakeable timeline in the internet to 
verify this. 
> How do you imagine such a 'false claim' affects anyone's use of
> released code and source or why it would be a factor in their choice?
> Personally I can't reconcile RedHat's restriction on redistributing
> binaries with the GPL's prohibition on additional restrictions, but
> Centos makes that a non-issue.
If redhat follows the rules of the GPL, redHat should ship the original 
cdrtools now!

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                    (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353
Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >
> > Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means....
> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the
normal
> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
> component with the same feature set.
That may be the USA interpretation but on the other, European, side of
the Atlantic I believe

	"as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.