[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 21:44:24 UTC 2015
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >>
>> 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?
The problem is that it can't be used as a component of a larger work
if any other components are GPL-covered. As you know very well.
> 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.
Unless you would like it to be used more widely, and available as
component in best-of-breed works.
> I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people send
> e.g. a GPL only patch.
So, not being able to accept patches from people who aren't sending
patches now - and probably aren't even aware of your work - would
somehow be a problem. That's ummm, imaginative...
> 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.
I haven't seen any serious discussion yet. Maybe we could discuss
how badly perl has suffered from not being able to accept those GPL'd
patches that you fear so much.
> Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages.
Wrong conclusion. Remind we why you asked about your code not being used.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the CentOS
mailing list