[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
btilly at gmail.com
Sat Dec 16 02:52:41 UTC 2006
On 12/15/06, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
> > How so? I'm attempting to give my perspective on section 8, which
> > everyone had been discussing.
> 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, so I could only go by memory or find relevant prior posts in
> the Web archive.
If you wish to find relevant material, I was the one who raised #8 in
the GPLv2. And my point was that immiscibility between 2 codebases
under essentially the same license is not new for open source.
> 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.
The starting comment for this subthread was your saying that we had
"immiscibility of two codebases under the _same_ licence." when there
were two codebases with similar attribution requirements but
requirements to attribute different companies.
I think that is as much (or not) the same license as GPLv2 and GPLv2
with optional restriction added based on clause 8. So this kind of
conflict in attribution licenses is not new. (It is, however,
substantially more likely.)
> Are you entirely done?
Hopefully we're all done, but I fear this will drag on some more.
However I did want to refresh your memory on how this subthread got
More information about the License-discuss