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

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
>> license, or BSD-old:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>
> Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?

The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
perl.   And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
you.

>> > 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.
>
> It seems that you are not interested in a sesrious discussion.

Not unless it is about how you or anyone else would be hurt by a dual
license.   Anything else is just ranting on both our parts.

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