From: Daniel Carrera Date: 2003-07-10T07:06:59+09:00 Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:52:54AM +0900, Warren Brown wrote: > 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". My definition of viral in this context is "something that forces its own spread in the sense that it might 'infect' an individual without that individual's consent. Email worms are viral. They spread even if the user doesn't want them to. The GPL is not viral. It will not "spread" into your work unless you want it to. > 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? Maybe. I am talking about people in general. You have the choice to use the GPL license, or to not use the code in question. The fact that the GPL will not get into your code unless you want it. That differenciates it from a virus, which you can get without your consent. - -- Daniel Carrera | OpenPGP fingerprint: Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88 UMD (301) 405-5137 | http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (SunOS) iD8DBQE/DJH9nxE8DWHf+OcRAu4dAJwKgumqN0cgh5jDPKJ+zxCibdSVCwCePd9i bXUv6+WP1/ei0SOGRIfT7LU= =AcTN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----