Re: [Bashdb-devel] Upcoming changes for potential Debian release

[Matthias K. <do...@cs...>]

Mikael Andersson writes:
> > Matthias Klose also mentioned a possible deficiency in using the GNU
> > Free Documentation License (GFDL) for the bashdb manual this link
> >   http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
> > suggests that GPL is a better thing to use. Anyone know anything about
> > this?
> 
> <warning licensing comments and opinions ahead, DON'T PANIC!>
[thanks for your informative followup]

I actually proposed to relicense or dual license the docs. The latter
would have the advantage, that it could be merged back to the bash
docs which have the same license for the docs (GPL)

> > Finally, the question has arisen here and elsewhere as to what to call
> > the bash-2.05b executable that has been modified to improve error
> > reporting and debugging support (and also now timestamps the history
> > file which I think essential if you use bash as your root shell).  I
> > suggested bash+dbg; Matthias Klose has chosen the name bash-bashdb
> > since there already is a bash-minimal and a bash-static in
> > Debian. Going in a completely different direction, some friends have
> > been urging me to call the project "rebash." I think this is a catchy
> > name.  After all, "bash" is the "Bourne-Again Shell" so this is the
> > "ReBourne-Again shell." Also sounds like "Rebok" and just the name
> > "rebash" is appropriate for the same reason that "bash" was a bash of
> > "sh".

> I think bash+dbg is good with the current scope of the project, but
> rebash if we intend on reviving bash development a bit when we're at
> it :).

ok, I'll name it bash+dbg as well.

	Matthias