Re: RFC/Feature request: UTF-8 support

On 3/22/18 8:12 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote: I have a local patch set of stuff that I haven't considered in an appropriate state to send to the list. One of the features I've got working is multibyte locale support. It doesn't assume UTF-8 (only assumes stateless encodings) and is tolerant of

Re: RFC/Feature request: UTF-8 support

Harald van Dijk wrote: > > To be honest, I'm getting confused now. > > I knew that the output of GPL programs is not generally covered by the > GPL itself. And that's all that COPYING says: > > "mksignames.c: > > This file is not directly linked with dash. However, its

Re: RFC/Feature request: UTF-8 support

On 22/03/2018 22:01, Martijn Dekker wrote: Op 22-03-18 om 20:12 schreef Harald van Dijk: Isn't all of busybox, including ash, GPL? Wouldn't that mean that if any busybox code is imported into dash, that from then on dash can only be distributed under GPL? I thought dash was already

Re: RFC/Feature request: UTF-8 support

Op 22-03-18 om 20:12 schreef Harald van Dijk: > Isn't all of busybox, including ash, GPL? Wouldn't that mean that if any > busybox code is imported into dash, that from then on dash can only be > distributed under GPL? I thought dash was already effectively under the GPL due to including the

Re: RFC/Feature request: UTF-8 support

On 22/03/2018 16:36, Martijn Dekker wrote: Busybox ash [...] The licenses are bidirectionally compatible. Isn't all of busybox, including ash, GPL? Wouldn't that mean that if any busybox code is imported into dash, that from then on dash can only be distributed under GPL? I have a local

Re: RFC/Feature request: UTF-8 support

Martijn Dekker wrote: > It's 2018 and UTF-8 is the de-facto standard character set for the > shell. IMO, supporting it should no longer be considered optional. > > Busybox ash mostly tracks dash in applying patches and such, but it does > a good job of supporting UTF-8. The