Joerg Schilling
2015-Apr-27 15:46 UTC
[CentOS] 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/'
Les Mikesell
2015-Apr-27 16:01 UTC
[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
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
Joerg Schilling
2015-Apr-27 16:16 UTC
[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
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/'
Reasonably Related Threads
- Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts