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

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >
> If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective
work" and the
> GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work
ZFS of
> course.
Which countries' copyright laws would permit that explicitly even when
some of the components' licenses prohibit it?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
      lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >
> > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective
work" and the
> > GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend
work ZFS of
> > course.
>
> Which countries' copyright laws would permit that explicitly even when
> some of the components' licenses prohibit it?
Fortunately, Europe and the USA declare the same parts of the GPL void, these
parts would prevent such a combination.

In the USA, the GPL is a legal construct called "license" for customer
protection and a "license" is limited to only make claims that are
listed in:
US Copyright law title 17 paragraph 106

The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims are 
not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.

The same parts of the GPL are void in the EU because they are writen in an 
ambiguous way. For customer protection, the rules for "general
conditions" and
these rules permit the customer to select the interpretation that is best for 
the customer in such a case.

Both legal systems have the same results: They prevent the GPL from using
it's
own interpretation os what a derivative work is and the rules from the laws 
apply instead. These rules make many combinations a "collective work"
that is
permitted. The cdrtools and ZFS on Linux match these rules - well, I assume 
that the ZFS integration code follows the rules that are needed for a clean 
collective work.

Cdrtools follow these rules:

-	No code from CDDL and GPL is mixed into a single file

-	Non-GPL code used in a colective work was implemented independently
	from the GPLd parts and form a separate work that may be used without
	the GPLd code 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/'

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >
> The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims
are
> not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.
The GPL is all that  gives you permission to distribute.  If it is
void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
code.
> Both legal systems have the same results: They prevent the GPL from using
it's
> own interpretation os what a derivative work is and the rules from the laws
> apply instead.
So apply copyright law without a license.  You can't distribute.   I
agree that the FSF interpretation about distributing source with the
intention that the end user does the link with other components is
pretty far off the wall, but static binaries are clearly one 'work as
a whole' and dynamic linkage is kind of fuzzy.    US juries are
supposed to focus on intent and are pretty unpredictable - I wouldn't
want to take a chance on what they might decide.
> These rules make many combinations a "collective work" that is
> permitted. The cdrtools and ZFS on Linux match these rules - well, I assume
> that the ZFS integration code follows the rules that are needed for a clean
> collective work.
Can you point out a reference to case where this has been validated?
That is, a case where the only licence to distribute  a component of
something is the GPL and distribution is permitted by a court ruling
under terms where the GPL does not apply to the 'work as a whole'?
> Cdrtools follow these rules:
>
> -       No code from CDDL and GPL is mixed into a single file
How is 'a file' relevant to the composition of the translated binary
where the copyright clearly extends?   And why do you have any rules
if you think the GPL doesn't pose a problem with combining components?
  More to the point, why don't you eliminate any question about that
problem with a dual license on the code you control?
> -       Non-GPL code used in a colective work was implemented independently
>         from the GPLd parts and form a separate work that may be used
without
>         the GPLd code as well.
How 'you' arrange them isn't the point.  Or even any individual who
builds something that isn't intended for redistribution.   But for
other people to consider them generally usable as components in
redistributable projects  there's not much reason to deal with the
inability to   combine with other widely used components.   What's the
point - and what do you have against the way perl handles it?

-- 
     Les Mikesell
       lesmikesell at gmail.com