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

[Stephen Harris <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Stephen Harris <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 people copies of the shell to take home.
> 
> AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997. Since 

In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies
to other people.

   Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
   From: David Korn <dgk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   If you are going to make copies for use at your course there is
   no problem.  However, if users are to get their own copies
   to take home with them, then we need to get each of them
   to accpet the license agreement that is on the web.

[ snip other options, including printing out the license and having
  people sign it and sending the results back! ]

-- 

rgds
Stephen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos