similar to: Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and the > GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS of > course. Which countries' copyright laws would permit that explicitly even when some of the

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

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code > > freely combinable with other OSS. > > Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad you recognize that. It's >

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

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my > > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown. > > > > Not sure why it matters with a standalone

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > >>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people. >> >> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS enemies. > > The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS enemy: > > http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue It is

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid > > this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked > > against any library under and

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about > bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and the > > GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS of > > course. >

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

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: > > >

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

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > > > >>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people. > >> > >> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS enemies. > > > > The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS

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

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote: > > > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88 > > licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting > > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't > > give

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means.... > Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal > interpretation is that it covers everything

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > >> The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is >> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered >> code. > > Fortunately judges know better than you.... > > If you read the reasoning from judgements, you would know that

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at