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

[Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

??? There is nothing different with heirloom.

And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code 
freely combinable with other OSS.

My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.

Just do not follow the false claims from some OSS enemies...and believe the 
lawyers that checked my code ;-)

My code was audited by "Sun legal", "Oracle legal" and by the legal department 
from SuSe. 

Question: when will RedHat follow the legal audits from these companies?

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxx                    (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos