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 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/'

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >
>> >         "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.
Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
license, or BSD-old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> 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.
But you can't add the 'advertising requirement' of the 4-clause BSD
to
something with a GPL component because additional restrictions are
prohibited.
> 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.
You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license
(which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI).   Fortunately,
the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the
GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized
as both open source and GPL-compatible.   But that hasn't - and
probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual
licensing.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
      lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > > >
> >> >         "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.
>
> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
> license, or BSD-old:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?

> > 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.
>
> But you can't add the 'advertising requirement' of the 4-clause
BSD to
> something with a GPL component because additional restrictions are
> prohibited.
>
> > 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.
>
> You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license
> (which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI).   Fortunately,
> the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the
> GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized
> as both open source and GPL-compatible.   But that hasn't - and
> probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual
> licensing.
It seems that you are not interested in a sesrious discussion.

The 4-clause BSD license is not a valid OSS license and all original BSD code 
was converted by addict of the president of UC-Berleley.

So you claim that there is 4-clause BSD code in the Linux kernel?
You are kidding :-(


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 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 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.
The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any non-GPL parts of the 
whole.  It requires that the whole "be licensed ... at no charge to all 
third parties under the terms of this License"

The whole, containing portions which are BSD licensed, does not place 
any additional restrictions or responsibilities upon recipients, and 
therefore satisfies the requirements of GPL2 section 2.b.
> In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can
do
> with GPL and CDDL as well.
No, you can't.  Section 6 of the GPL states that "You may not impose
any
further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted 
herein."  CDDL however, does contain additional restrictions.

Moreover, the exclusion is mutual.  Section 3.4 of the CDDL states "You 
may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code 
form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or 
the recipients' rights hereunder."  The GPL2 restricts the recipients 
rights in ways that the CDDL does not.

I'm not able to find any information about actual court decisions about 
compatibility between GPL 2 or 3 and CDDL or MPL 1.1 (upon which CDDL 
was based).  The FSF regards MPL 1.1 and CDDL as incompatible with GPL. 
  If you and your lawyers disagree, you might end up as the first to 
establish a court precedent.  Only you can decide for yourself if that 
is a risk you would like to undertake, and if the value of testing that 
notion is worth the costs.  Until then, any claim that the two are 
compatible is naive.

Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any non-GPL parts of the 
> whole.  It requires that the whole "be licensed ... at no charge to
all
> third parties under the terms of this License"
	You missread the GPL. Ask a lawyer for help.

The GPL demands (in case you ship binaries and only in this case) no more than 
to put the GPL work under GPL and to make anything, needed to re-create 
the binary, to be made available under a license that allows redistribution.

See e.g. the book about the GPL from the lawyers of Harald Welte.

	http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/025-168.pdf

See page 85 (PDF page 60) see the lower half of the paragraph numbered
"23".

> > In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you
can do
> > with GPL and CDDL as well.
>
> No, you can't.  Section 6 of the GPL states that "You may not
impose any
> further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted 
> herein."  CDDL however, does contain additional restrictions.
	I recommend you not to repeat false claims from uninformed people. 

If you did read the CDDL, you did of course know that the CDDL places "work
limits" at file limits and that the CDDL does not try to impose any 
restriction on sources that are not in a file marked as CDDLd. So the CDDL of 
course does create any restriction on a GPLd work.

On the other side, the GPL does create restrictions on other sources, but it 
just requires other sources (if needed to recreate the shipped binary) to be 
shipped together with the GPLd work. The GPL of course does not impose any 
further restrictions on _other_ sources under a different license.

Given the fact that the official cdrtools source tarball includes everything to 
recreate the binary, everything is legal unless you make unlawful changes to 
the original source.

So calm down, read the GPL and the CDDL by your own - repeat this - until you 
fully understand both licenses.

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/'