[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Gordon Messmer
gordon.messmer at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 21:59:06 UTC 2015
On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as
> this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL
> in order to make the whole be under GPL.
The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any non-GPL parts of the
whole. It requires that the whole "be licensed ... at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of this License"
The whole, containing portions which are BSD licensed, does not place
any additional restrictions or responsibilities upon recipients, and
therefore satisfies the requirements of GPL2 section 2.b.
> In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do
> with GPL and CDDL as well.
No, you can't. Section 6 of the GPL states that "You may not impose any
further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
herein." CDDL however, does contain additional restrictions.
Moreover, the exclusion is mutual. Section 3.4 of the CDDL states "You
may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code
form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or
the recipients' rights hereunder." The GPL2 restricts the recipients
rights in ways that the CDDL does not.
I'm not able to find any information about actual court decisions about
compatibility between GPL 2 or 3 and CDDL or MPL 1.1 (upon which CDDL
was based). The FSF regards MPL 1.1 and CDDL as incompatible with GPL.
If you and your lawyers disagree, you might end up as the first to
establish a court precedent. Only you can decide for yourself if that
is a risk you would like to undertake, and if the value of testing that
notion is worth the costs. Until then, any claim that the two are
compatible is naive.
More information about the CentOS
mailing list