From: Warren Brown <wkb@...>
Date: 2003-07-10T06:52:54+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

To try to inject a little reason here:

    I think the main point of contention in this debate is the word "viral".
I believe that Daniel is interpreting "viral" strictly according to the
dictionary definition: "of, relating to, or caused by a virus"; and "virus"
as: "the causative agent of an infectious disease".

    I think that others are perhaps using a more generic definition of
"viral" more akin to "something that spreads through self-replication".  An
example of this usage is found in "viral email campaigns" where an email
encourages recipients to forward the email to other recipients, thereby
spreading through a sort of "self-replication".  I realize that I am
stretching the definition of "self-replication" in that I am including
"human-assisted self-replication", but I think in this case the term still
fits.

    By this broader definition of "viral", it seems to me that the GPL *can*
be considered viral.  In a way, it spreads itself through "self-replication"
since it requires people who use GPL works in their projects to also
designate their own projects as GPL.

    Obviously, if someone does not use GPL works, the license can not
somehow "infect" their code.  But we aren't talking about them, we're
talking about people who want to use GPL works.

    Does this resolve any misunderstandings?

    - Warren Brown