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

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.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net>
wrote:
>
>> 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.
OK, great.  That clears it up then.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning <centos at
u64.u22.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> OK, great.  That clears it up then.
Maybe this helps:

The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD 
code under the GPL. This was e.g. explained by Theo de Raath some years ago 
already. The result was that Linux people did remove the GPL header from all 
BSDd Linux source files that have not been 100% written by the same person that 
added the GPL header.

The BSD license permits to mix a source file under BSD license with some lines 
under a different license if you document this. But this is not done in all 
cases I am aware of.

Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as 
this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL
in order to make the whole be under GPL.

In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do 
with GPL and CDDL as well.

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/'