[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Your point might clearer if you'd quote relevant material from the
> preceding thread, but unfortunately you did not in the post to which I
> replied.

My mistake.  I thought I had.

> In any event, this is starting to get extremely silly:  A codebase under
> GPLv2 with some specific geographic-restriction addendum based on clause
> #8 is _not_, in fact, under the same licence as one under GPLv2 without
> that additional clause.

I agree.  I was just pointing out that this *was* a copyright issue.  I
wasn't the one who brought up clause 8 to begin with.  Now we're done. :)

Matt

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061215/d385b0cd/attachment.sig>