On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Scott Chapman <[email protected]> wrote:
> IANAL, but I can understand IBM's reluctance to ship any GPL code with the > operating system. At least I'm assuming their reluctance--if anybody knows > of GPL code that ships directly with z/OS, that would be a good precedent > for including Bash. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem > > Hum, I think I see your point. By distributing BASH with z/OS in the base installation, like the /bin/sh pseudo-Korn shell, it is possible that a person might conclude that either (1) z/OS is GPL licensed or (2) BASH is not. So I guess that integrating BASH into the "Ported Tools" and including it _might_ be an option. This separation would help people understand that the "Ported Tools" and the base z/OS are different things under different licenses. Kind of like in the old days where some of the IBM "products" were "One Time Charge" (such as FDPs). People understood that the OS was separate from the product and had different licensing fees. All of this makes me wonder if IBM needs a new option for some of these things. Perhaps in addition to the "Ported Tools", (with naming permission?) create a "z/OS GNU Tools" or maybe "z/OS GPL Licensed Tools" to contain all non-IBM developed, ported, software which is GPL licensed. Or am I getting too granular with the licensing? Maybe "Ported Tools" is good enough. -- There is nothing more pleasant than traveling and meeting new people! Genghis Khan Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
