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 10:46 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/'

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.
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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!
You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase 'work
as a whole'.
>> 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.
> 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?

-- 
     Les Mikesell
        lesmikesell at gmail.com

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/'