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

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
whole point is the restriction against linking with anything with an
incompatible license which obviously prevents a lot of best-of-breed
combinations.

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

Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.

> 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.

Sure, there is nothing 'wrong' with your licence as long as it isn't
mixed with anything with different restrictions.   Just don't act
surprised that the code doesn't get used in projects that have to
accommodate GPL restrictions.

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

Question:  If _you_ believe that it is OK to mix your code with GPL'd
code, why not add the dual licensing statement  that would make it
clear for everyone else?   It doesn't take anything away - unless you
really don't want it to be used in other projects.

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