[lloeki]

License-wise:

- this piece of code is 2BSD-licensed

- it calls out to /bin/sh

- on OS X, /bin/sh is hardlinked to /bin/bash

- OS X's bash is GPLv2

Forking to shell is the only way to reuse bash's code. More often than not I really wish sh were not bash.

[_ZeD_]

"Forking to shell is the only way to reuse bash's code."

well, the other obvius way is to license this piece of code as GPLv2.

[yetihehe]

AFAIK this is THE reason for GPL. So that you either release your code and contribute to open source or suffer from slower access methods.

[feld]

The BSDs doesn't ship with bash and their wordexp shelling out to /bin/sh doesn't suffer, so I don't see how this is a reason for the GPL.

[yetihehe]

Probably I've written it not clearly enough: "Reason for GPL not allowing you to use code in your own programs, but allowing use through exec: you either release your code and contribute to open source or suffer from slower access methods."

[feld]

ahh, ok; that's clearer

[tedunangst]

Which would require libc to be GPL, something not even glibc does.