The /bin/true Command and Copyright
trillian.mit.edu
The /bin/true Command and Copyright
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#2Did AT&T actually tried to enforce this copyright? Because what I see is auto-generated header that is put to every shell script present on the system. Entertaining nonetheless.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#3Did AT&T actually tried to enforce this copyright? Because what I see is auto-generated header that is put to every shell script present on the system. Entertaining nonetheless.
Yes your are surely right. But what about GNU guys' bint/true implementations copyright message? :)
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#4Did AT&T actually tried to enforce this copyright? Because what I see is auto-generated header that is put to every shell script present on the system. Entertaining nonetheless.
After the "insert copyright headers in all files" edict is given, it isn't unusual to find empty files that are copyrighted. Config files placeholders in particular end up copyrighting the zero length file.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#5While looking for the GNU true source code I found that raganwald has blogged about this earlier. His conclusion seems sound: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/02/recursive-implementation...
The source code is in this Daily WTF thread: http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/t/3779.aspx
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#6Reminds me of Oracle licensing the Java Hello World: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/getStarted/applicatio...
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#7Did AT&T actually tried to enforce this copyright? Because what I see is auto-generated header that is put to every shell script present on the system. Entertaining nonetheless.
Yes your are surely right. But what about GNU guys' bint/true implementations copyright message? :)
The GNU /bin/true is almost certainly complex enough to qualify for copyright.
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#8Did AT&T actually tried to enforce this copyright? Because what I see is auto-generated header that is put to every shell script present on the system. Entertaining nonetheless.
How can we know? A mere veiled threat of litigation is enough to make a lot of corporations cower in fear, and stop doing whatever generated the threat. Does merely threatening a suit constitute "enforcing the copyright"?
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#9Did AT&T actually tried to enforce this copyright? Because what I see is auto-generated header that is put to every shell script present on the system. Entertaining nonetheless.
Yes your are surely right. But what about GNU guys' bint/true implementations copyright message? :)
Try this with a GNU true binary: `strace /bin/true 2>&1 |wc -l`
;)
Re: The /bin/true Command and Copyright
#10Did AT&T actually tried to enforce this copyright? Because what I see is auto-generated header that is put to every shell script present on the system. Entertaining nonetheless.
After the "insert copyright headers in all files" edict is given, it isn't unusual to find empty files that are copyrighted. Config files placeholders in particular end up copyrighting the zero length file.
I worked at a company that didn't merely issue this edict, but attempted to enforce it technologically. Every file in every commit was checked for the presence of a prescribed style of copyright string (something along the lines of "Copyright (c) YYYY Acme Inc.").
For a lot of my time there, I was more operations than development. A lot of piddly-ass configuration files and other things no copyright could possibly exist for got copyright strings added just so I wouldn't have to remember to type "NO ACME COPYRIGHT" into every bloody commit message to bypass the hook.