Re: [Help-bash] Adding missing bash features for safely re-usable bash code

[John Kearney]

Am 08.04.2013 23:20, schrieb Bob Proulx:
> Hi John,
>
> I am not going to comment upon the code itself.  But I would like to
> comment upon the license.  IANAL.  But I would like to stop the
> proliferation of different and unique licenses.
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation
>   http://opensource.org/proliferation
>
> John Kearney wrote:
>> #I   Copyright: Copyright (c) 2002-2012, address@hidden
>> #I      Author: John Kearney,                  address@hidden
>> #I
>> #I     License: All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying
>> #I              materials are licensed and made available under the
>> #I              terms and conditions of the BSD License which
>> #I              accompanies this distribution. The full text of the
>> #I              license may be found at
>> #I              http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
>> #I
>> #I              THE PROGRAM IS DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE BSD LICENSE ON AN "
>> #I              AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF
>> #I              ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
> I think your intention is to say that you are using the BSD license
> referenced by the URL.  But in effect I think you have created yet a
> new and unique license because you have mixed language in your text.
> This means that anyone wanting to make use of the code would first
> need to analyze how this interacts with the world all over again.
> That makes it problematic.
>
> Instead it would be most helpful if you used one of the standard free
> licenses verbatim.  Then all of the standard analysis applies
> directly.  Of course being on this mailing list the GPLv3 would be
> most appreciated but any free(dom) license would be wonderful.
>
>   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
>
> Bob
>
Hi Bob,
I did actually copy that verbatium from somewhere. I'm not going to dig
into why this is different right now.  I don't like gpl or lgpl, so it
will stay bsd. I'll have to think about it but I can probably just
switch the current wording out to what is actually on the link.

Anyway I haven't actually posted this code anywhere public yet, except
for this list so its currently not really an issue.