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

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 application like sh, but I
think a lot of people have been put off by the GPL incompatibility
with your tools.   If you want popularity - and usability, a
dual-license would work as perl shows.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos