About:
oksh is a port of OpenBSD's version of ksh for Linux.

Author:
Haary [contact developer]

Rating:	reset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(not rated)

Homepage:
http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/
Tar/GZ:
http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/oksh-0.3.tar.gz
Debian package:
http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/oksh_0.3-1_i386.deb

Trove categories: [change]

[Development Status]		4 - Beta
[Environment]		Console (Text Based)
[License]		OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v3, Public Domain
[Operating System]		POSIX :: Linux
[Topic]		System :: Shells

Dependencies: [change]
No dependencies filed

 Branches

Branch	Version	Last release	License	URLs
Default	0.3	23-Nov-2007	GNU General Public License v3

 Releases

Version	Focus	Date
0.3	Minor bugfixes	23-Nov-2007 15:38
0.2	Code cleanup	13-Sep-2006 21:26
0.1	Initial freshmeat announcement	17-Feb-2006 15:35

 Comments

[»] licence
by lynxxx - Nov 23rd 2007 08:39:37

Just a question?
Why do you change the source who is BSD licenced to
something like GPL3?

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: licence
by Haary - Nov 23rd 2007 13:48:17

Most part of the code is originally public domain, a small part was licensed under BSD 3-clause license. Both are compatible with GPLv3. Thus it is not a change of the license in a strict sense. It is a licensing "on top" of the other licenses (though public domain is not a license at all). The main reason for choosing GPLv3 is that I believe that this license is most suitable for protecting the freedom of the user.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: licence
by nateatmyballs - Nov 23rd 2007 15:00:21

But not that of the people doing the real coding. You're making it so if you actually made code worth using, noone who's code you use could use yours. That seems a little two-faced of you.

--
Nate

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: licence
by Haary - Nov 24th 2007 12:19:48

Please inform yourself about GPLv3 correctly before you post FUD.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: licence
by nateatmyballs - Nov 24th 2007 12:53:22

GPL3 code cannot go into the public domain code without making the codebase GPL3, so your code is entirely useless to the public domain developers who's code you use. This is not Fudd, this is Fact.

--
Nate

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: licence
by Haary - Nov 24th 2007 13:54:23

So, they can use my code - if they license it under GPLv3. I don't understand your problem. There are thousands of projects using code released under a different license such as BSD and public domain before and then release it under GPLv2 and v3 and other even more restrictive licenses. I don't know why you picked this tiny project to vent your anger.

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: licence
by nateatmyballs - Nov 24th 2007 14:38:51

I'm not picking on you, I am pointing out the duplicity involved in your actions. You speak of freedom, while denying the people who's work you use the ability to benefit back. Because of how insignificant the work involved in your effort is, it really shouldn't be something that requires the GPL3 to protect it. They cannot use your code, without giving up all the freedoms they granted you in the first place. I would call your actions two-faced.

--
Nate

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: licence
by Haary - Nov 25th 2007 12:19:55

I deny them only the ability to make the code unfree. The previous licenses made it even possible to make the whole thing closed source (i. e. propietary). With GPL this is not possible. I repeat myself: Thousands of free software programmers make the same thing every day. They took code from software which is licensed under non-copyleft licenses and release their code under GPL or other copyleft licenses. In this sense I think the majority of free software programmers are "two-faced".

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Re: licence
by mirabile - Jul 11th 2008 18:57:13


> I deny them only the ability to make the

> code unfree.

What code? It's not as if you had written anything
sensible or contributed any material actually protected
by copyright law or Berne convention to the project.

Please also read about the ar5k vs OpenHAL case, where
the Linux developers agreed to place changes to BSD-
licenced files¹ under the BSD licence, since it would
be impolite otherwise, and only use the GNU GPL for
_new_ files they created.

¹) I know that OpenBSD ksh is not BSD licenced, but if
you were using mksh (again), this would apply, and even
so it's similar enough to be impolite.

--
-- Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, so it should be hard to understand. -- seen on NexusBoard

[reply] [top]

---

[»] Licence: NOT public domain!
by mirabile - Sep 3rd 2006 18:19:38

oksh uses code from mksh, which is NOT in the
public domain. The author has acknowledged it
in private eMail and will update the informa-
tion in the next release; however, I as mksh's
author would like to inform the public of this
earlier.

--
-- Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, so it should be hard to understand. -- seen on NexusBoard

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Licence: NOT public domain!
by Haary - Sep 13th 2006 14:18:31

I removed all mksh code in version 0.2

[reply] [top]

---