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 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/'

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >
>> > 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.
No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
need for it.   But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
clear to everyone else.   It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > > >
> >> > 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.
>
> No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
> need for it.   But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
> you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
> clear to everyone else.   It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
> perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
> use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.
Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related 
licenses.

What problem do you have with fully legal code?

I explained that because cdrtools is legally distributable as is (see legal 
reviews from Sun, Oracle and Suse), there is no need to dual license anything.

I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people send 
e.g. a GPL only patch.

If you continue to claim not to have an answer from me, I need to assume that 
you are not interested in a serious discussion.

Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages.

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/'