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

Mon Apr 27 21:59:06 UTC 2015
Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com>

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.