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

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where
> additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did
> never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about the
> existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe -
> regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages.

I just remembered a counterpoint to this.  Back in the Windows 3.0
days when windows had no tcp networking of its own, I put together a
DOS binary built from gnutar and the wattcp stack so you could back up
a windows or dos box to a unix system via rsh.    And when I tried to
give it away I was contacted and told that I couldn't distribute it
because even though wattcp was distributed in source, it had other
conflicts with the GPL.  As a side effect of getting it to build on a
DOS compiler, I prototyped the tar code and contributed that and some
bugfixes.  Someone else's version was accepted instead but at least my
name is still in a comment somewhere.  Probably the only thing still
being distributed...

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