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

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
>> > 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.
>
> I explained this to you in vast details. If you ignore this explanation, I
> cannot help you.

No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
need for it.   But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
clear to everyone else.   It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.

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