[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
nick at zork.net
Sat Dec 16 19:03:12 UTC 2006
> Apparently, someone (perhaps you) recently posted a rather pointless
> hypothetical about two "GPLed" codebases, one with a clause 8 addition
> making it unlawful to use in some specific country -- claiming that
> this was an already existing example of two codebases being
> incompatible despite being under the same licence -- with the alleged
> point, such as it was, being that immiscible codebases under the same
> licence were (allegedly) nothing new.
So I may be only offering a distraction here, but it is my understanding
A: The GPL as published by the FSF all but self-destructs when you try
to impose additional restrictions such as the aforementioned "clause 8
B: The copyright for the GPL is owned in total by the Free Software
Foundation with all rights reserved (except distribution), and they are
not in the habit of licensing it to developers for the purposes of
adding additional restrictions.
So this hypothetical situation seems to be about six or seven kinds of
unlikely, as opposed to the usual two or three that the typical GPL
straw man tends to create.
"N'aimez pas votre voiture? Nick Moffitt
Alor, l'heure est arrive pour la brulé!" nick at teh.entar.net
-- Mark Jaroski
More information about the License-discuss