CentOS - Apr 2015 - Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar
where
> additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF
did
> never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about
the
> existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe -
> regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages.
I just remembered a counterpoint to this.  Back in the Windows 3.0
days when windows had no tcp networking of its own, I put together a
DOS binary built from gnutar and the wattcp stack so you could back up
a windows or dos box to a unix system via rsh.    And when I tried to
give it away I was contacted and told that I couldn't distribute it
because even though wattcp was distributed in source, it had other
conflicts with the GPL.  As a side effect of getting it to build on a
DOS compiler, I prototyped the tar code and contributed that and some
bugfixes.  Someone else's version was accepted instead but at least my
name is still in a comment somewhere.  Probably the only thing still
being distributed...

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of
gtar where
> > additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The
FSF did
> > never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know
about the
> > existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe
-
> > regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages.
>
> I just remembered a counterpoint to this.  Back in the Windows 3.0
> days when windows had no tcp networking of its own, I put together a
> DOS binary built from gnutar and the wattcp stack so you could back up
> a windows or dos box to a unix system via rsh.    And when I tried to
> give it away I was contacted and told that I couldn't distribute it
> because even though wattcp was distributed in source, it had other
> conflicts with the GPL.  As a side effect of getting it to build on a
If you had the wattcp stack in a separate library and if you did make the 
needed changes for integration in the gtar source, this was fully legal.

I know that the FSF frequently tries to ask people to do things that are not on 
a legal base. They however know that they cannot go on trial with this...

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 Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
>> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>> > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version
of gtar where
>> > additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS.
The FSF did
>> > never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know
about the
>> > existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are
safe -
>> > regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF
webpages.
>>
>> I just remembered a counterpoint to this.  Back in the Windows 3.0
>> days when windows had no tcp networking of its own, I put together a
>> DOS binary built from gnutar and the wattcp stack so you could back up
>> a windows or dos box to a unix system via rsh.    And when I tried to
>> give it away I was contacted and told that I couldn't distribute it
>> because even though wattcp was distributed in source, it had other
>> conflicts with the GPL.  As a side effect of getting it to build on a
>
> If you had the wattcp stack in a separate library and if you did make the
> needed changes for integration in the gtar source, this was fully legal.
The source code was separate files, but the binary 'work as a whole'
had to be one.  I don't think DOS even had a concept of loading binary
libraries separate from the main executable.  And the binary obviously
is controlled by the copyright on the source.   So while I don't like
it, I can see the point that it does not meet the GPL requirement any
more than it would if it were linked to a commercial library that
another user would have to purchase.  And there's a reasonable chance
they could make an equivalent case even where shared libraries can be
used, since the intent is the same.
> I know that the FSF frequently tries to ask people to do things that are
not on
> a legal base. They however know that they cannot go on trial with this...
Yes, so, the only way to help keep others from being harmed by this is
to dual-license code so they can't possibly make such a claim.  It
doesn't happen with perl because Larry Wall understood that long ago.
Or, if you are so sure of your legal footing, distribute something
that they will challenge yourself and win the case that will set the
precedent for the rest of us.   But I'd guess dual-licensing would be
easier and cheaper.
-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com