From: Rasputin <rasputin@...>
Date: 2003-07-09T19:05:49+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

* Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> [0714 03:14]:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:09:07AM +0900, Jim Cain wrote:
> > Stephyn Butcher wrote:
> > 
> > >They don't call GPL a legal virus for nothing:
> > 
> > The problem with the term *virus* is that it implies malevolence. A 
> > virus imposes itself on its victim without consent. That is not the 
> > spirit of the GPL. The GPL is attached to something that is given away 
> > freely. Likewise, anyone is free to use it, or to choose some other 
> > solution.
> > 
> > If I decide to give you something for free, it is not unreasonable to 
> > ask that you, if you decide to accept and use it, also make any derived 
> > works available with the same freedoms from which you benefitted.
> > 
> > You are, of course, free to decline my offer. That is hardly a virus.
> 
> Exactly.  The GPL does not *impose* anything.  It sets a condition upon the use a 
> pice of software.  You have two choices:  comply with the conditions, or don't use 
> it.  There is nothing viral about that.

The term 'viral' refers to the fact that if you want to use GPLed code, your code 
must become GPL. So it spreads. Unlike more flexible licenses,
such as the BSD or Apache licenses, which don't restrict you in the same way.

I presume that's why the LGPL exists?
-- 
You've been leading a dog's life.  Stay off the furniture.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns