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 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 Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>>>
>> 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 only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
perl.   And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
you.
>> > 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.
Not unless it is about how you or anyone else would be hurt by a dual
license.   Anything else is just ranting on both our parts.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
      lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >> 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 only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
> dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
> perl.   And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
> you.
I explained this to you in vast details. If you ignore this explanation, I 
cannot help you.

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/'