[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> 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.

Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related 
licenses.

What problem do you have with fully legal code?

I explained that because cdrtools is legally distributable as is (see legal 
reviews from Sun, Oracle and Suse), there is no need to dual license anything.

I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people send 
e.g. a GPL only patch.

If you continue to claim not to have an answer from me, I need to assume that 
you are not interested in a serious discussion.

Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                    (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'