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 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >
> > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well
known and my
> > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
> >
>
> Not sure why it matters with a standalone application like sh, but I
> think a lot of people have been put off by the GPL incompatibility
> with your tools.   If you want popularity - and usability, a
> dual-license would work as perl shows.
??? There is nothing different with heirloom.

And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code 
freely combinable with other OSS.

My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.

Just do not follow the false claims from some OSS enemies...and believe the 
lawyers that checked my code ;-)

My code was audited by "Sun legal", "Oracle legal" and by
the legal department
from SuSe. 

Question: when will RedHat follow the legal audits from these companies?

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 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >
> And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code
> freely combinable with other OSS.
Of course the problem it the GPL.  Glad you recognize that.  It's
whole point is the restriction against linking with anything with an
incompatible license which obviously prevents a lot of best-of-breed
combinations.
> My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.
Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.
> Just do not follow the false claims from some OSS enemies...and believe the
> lawyers that checked my code ;-)
>
> My code was audited by "Sun legal", "Oracle legal" and
by the legal department
> from SuSe.
Sure, there is nothing 'wrong' with your licence as long as it isn't
mixed with anything with different restrictions.   Just don't act
surprised that the code doesn't get used in projects that have to
accommodate GPL restrictions.
> Question: when will RedHat follow the legal audits from these companies?
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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >
> > And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL
code
> > freely combinable with other OSS.
>
> Of course the problem it the GPL.  Glad you recognize that.  It's
> whole point is the restriction against linking with anything with an
> incompatible license which obviously prevents a lot of best-of-breed
> combinations.
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.

> > My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with
it.
>
> Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.
???
> > Just do not follow the false claims from some OSS enemies...and
believe the
> > lawyers that checked my code ;-)
> >
> > My code was audited by "Sun legal", "Oracle legal"
and by the legal department
> > from SuSe.
>
> Sure, there is nothing 'wrong' with your licence as long as it
isn't
> mixed with anything with different restrictions.   Just don't act
> surprised that the code doesn't get used in projects that have to
> accommodate GPL restrictions.

Again, don't follow the agitation from OSS enemies. You are of course wrong!

> > Question: when will RedHat follow the legal audits from these
companies?
>
> 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?

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. 

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/'