[Info-vax] bash (Re: BASIC (was Re: 64-bit))

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 1/16/2024 8:56 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 1/15/24 9:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/15/2024 9:09 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> It wouldn't hurt to have a
>>> Unix shell always available too just because of how many people are
>>> already familiar with them.  I guess that couldn't be bash given the 
>>> GPL.
>>
>> Nothing VMS would be linked with VMS so GPL should not be a problem.
>>
>> Or maybe I should say "is" instead of "would be".
>>
>> https://vmssoftware.com/products/gnv/
> 
> Would the situation not differ if bash were distributed as part of the
> base installation rather than an add-on?

I don't think so.

I believe the operational phrases are "linked with" and "combined with"
not whether they are distributed together or separate.

Consider the scenario:
- library XYZ is under GPL
- program ABC use library XYZ
- does the question whether ABC need to be available under GPL depend on
   whether abc.zip contains xyz or whether it does not and users need
   to download xyz from another site?
- the general expectation is that ABC need to be available under GPL
   no matter the distribution

>                                           I thought that was why Apple
> moved away from bash as the default shell.  But IANAL.

That is actually a good question. And Google is not my friend today.

Apple switched from old bash (GPL V2) to zsh (MIT) instead of to
new bash (GPL V3).

The internet per Google search seems a bit unclear about exactly why.

Some say that Apple do not like the patent stuff in GPL V3
not present in GPL V2.

Some say that Apple want to sign executables on iOS and that
is incompatible with GPL right to modify and replace.

Arne