Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-11 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <87iqomapdk@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes * Anthony W. Youngman: The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, "further restrictions" are not allowed. So having source code is not sufficient for compliance. Yes, but if I'm a DISTRIBUTOR, I don't hav

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* Anthony W. Youngman: >>The GPL requires more than just source code. In particular, "further >>restrictions" are not allowed. So having source code is not >>sufficient for compliance. > > Yes, but if I'm a DISTRIBUTOR, I don't have the power to change the > licence, so if I receive source-code

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-10 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <871vvbv5st@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes * Anthony W. Youngman: Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode? Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode? I meant bytecode - along the lines of "basic is interpreted code, but sometimes it's pre-pr

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-10 Thread Florian Weimer
* Anthony W. Youngman: > Is the interpreter interpreting source or pseudocode? Pseudocode? Do you mean compiled code or bytecode? > Maybe I'm being dense, but in the case of something like a bash > script, the distributor is distributing source therefore the licence > of the interpreter is irre

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-04 Thread Anthony W. Youngman
In message <87sknziao6@mid.deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer writes * Matthew Johnson: On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not sure how sourced bash scripts

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-04 Thread Florian Weimer
* Matthew Johnson: > On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: >> As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange >> interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not >> sure how sourced bash scripts are supposed to be considered in this >> context, I wonder if

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-03 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 10:06:53AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Sat Jan 03 09:22, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > > On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange >

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-03 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Sat Jan 03 09:22, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange > > > interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-03 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:53:06PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: > > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange > > interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not > > sure how sourced bash scripts are supposed t

Re: bash completion script licensing

2009-01-02 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Fri Jan 02 19:50, Mike Hommey wrote: > As the GPL and CDDL are incompatible, as GPL code has some strange > interactions with other code (library linkage, etc.), and as I'm not > sure how sourced bash scripts are supposed to be considered in this > context, I wonder if having such a CDDL bash sc

bash completion script licensing

2009-01-02 Thread Mike Hommey
Hi, While working on packaging zfs-fuse, I thought about adding a bash completion script for the zfs and zpool commands. Anyways, such a script already exists[1], but its license is CDDL, which is not GPL compatible. Most files in /etc/bash_completion.d on my system don't have a license boilerpla