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

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 license. If this was not thecase, you could not
> legally distribute binaries from GPLd programs.

You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between binary and
source since one is derived from the other.

>> > My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.
>>
>> Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.
>
> ???

Odd, I expected you to be as smart as him.  He started with only the
'Artistic' license but quickly understood the issues when you need
part of the 'work as a whole' to include, say, linking in a
proprietary database driver as one component and GPL'd readline as
another, along with the code he wanted to be generally usable.  And he
did something about it.

>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Again, don't follow the agitation from OSS enemies. You are of course wrong!

You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase 'work as a whole'.

>> 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.
>
> Why should I do something that is not needed?

My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose anything but the
restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows
you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't like the
GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
GPL'd.

> But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to first inform
> yourself correctly.
>
>         I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.

So, you really don't want your code to be used?    Then why ask why it
isn't popular?

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