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 4:19 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/'

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >>
>> 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?
The problem is that it can't be used as a component of a larger work
if any other components are GPL-covered.  As you know very well.
> 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.
Unless you would like it to be used more widely, and available as
component in best-of-breed works.
> I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people
send
> e.g. a GPL only patch.
So, not being able to accept patches from people who aren't sending
patches now - and probably aren't even aware of your work - would
somehow be a problem.   That's ummm, imaginative...
> 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.
I haven't seen any serious discussion yet.    Maybe we could discuss
how badly perl has suffered from not being able to accept those GPL'd
patches that you fear so much.
> Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages.
Wrong conclusion.   Remind we why you asked about your code not being used.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >>
> >> 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?
>
> The problem is that it can't be used as a component of a larger work
> if any other components are GPL-covered.  As you know very well.
You know very well that you are writing a false claim here.

Cdrtools is fully legal and can be rightfully redistributed in source or binary 
form. This has been verified by three independent teams of lawyers.

If you have wishes that go bejond legality, 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/'