[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Stephen Harris
lists at spuddy.orgFri Apr 24 13:30:06 UTC 2015
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote: > > > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88 > > licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting > > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't > > give people copies of the shell to take home. > > AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997. Since In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies to other people. Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT) From: David Korn <dgk at research.att.com> If you are going to make copies for use at your course there is no problem. However, if users are to get their own copies to take home with them, then we need to get each of them to accpet the license agreement that is on the web. [ snip other options, including printing out the license and having people sign it and sending the results back! ] -- rgds Stephen
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list