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

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
>> >         "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
>>
>> OK, great.  That clears it up then.
>
> Maybe this helps:
>
> The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD
> code under the GPL.

Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
license, or BSD-old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

> The BSD license permits to mix a source file under BSD license with some lines
> under a different license if you document this. But this is not done in all
> cases I am aware of.

But you can't add the 'advertising requirement' of the 4-clause BSD to
something with a GPL component because additional restrictions are
prohibited.

> Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as
> this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL
> in order to make the whole be under GPL.
>
> In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do
> with GPL and CDDL as well.

You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license
(which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI).   Fortunately,
the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the
GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized
as both open source and GPL-compatible.   But that hasn't - and
probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual
licensing.

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