On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:54:49AM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:08:43AM -0500, chap0@cs.purdue.edu wrote:
> > Chris Pinnock wrote:
> > 
> > > ksh is pretty good these days (set -o emacs to get the history editing
> > > commands and so on).
> > 
> > That reminds me ... now that actual ksh comes with an open source license:
> > 
> >   http://www.research.att.com/~gsf/download/faq.license.html
> > 
> > what are the chances of its ever being promoted from a 'package' and used in
> > the system in place of the pdksh clone that is currently installed as /bin/ksh?
> > 
> > Real ksh is *very* good these days, but it's frustrating that you kind of
> > don't dare writing ksh scripts that include l11n or date/time computations
> > or formatted output or long options or doc generation or loadable extensions
> > or any of the other things ksh does, because you always have to consider your
> > script running on a system where something else is installed as /bin/ksh that
> > isn't.
> 
> Hmmm.. Maybe that's a solution to bin/26493 and friends..
> 

The license is an open one, but there are restrictions which may cause
problems with including this KSH in base.

If I've read their FAQ correctly, if I make proprietary extensions, I would 
have to supply any patches back to AT&T if I provide the source code to anyone
else. (faq 3). This might not be acceptable to people who base commercial
products on NetBSD and so on.

We would have to keep NetBSD changes seperate in our base source (faq 5,6).

(I'm not a legal expert and I'm not talking on behalf of the NetBSD project, 
just myself.)

-- 
Chris (E3AE C99C 0E4B 89CF DDCC FFF9 9683 2D39 D426 A42C)