Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > Yes, I realize that osh is closer to the original Bourne shell. My point is > that you can?t expect people to just know, without having been told, why they > want bsh, or osh, bosh, or smake, or? > > Most of these tools compete with tools that are already in CentOS. If you > want people to use these instead, you?re not going to persuade many people > with a tarball.
Could you explain me why people did write gmake even though smake did exist 5 years eralier already? > > The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS > > enemies. > > The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS enemy: > > http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue This is of course completely wrong. I recommend you to read the GPL book from the Lawyers from Harald Welte. They explain why a filesystem is not a derived work of the Linux kernel. This of course in special true for ZFS as ZFS was not written for Linux and works without Linux already. http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
