From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T06:58:40+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 06:17:04AM +0900, Paul Brannan wrote:

> A male and a female reproducing together is sexual reproduction.  This
> is a much different relationship from a host and a parasite.

The GPL is not a parasite.  Your definition of spreading only with 
external assistance is poor because regular sex requires external 
assistance.

Notice, I am *not* saying that sex is like a virus.  Precisely the 
opposite.  I am saying: (a) we know that sex is not like a virus, (b) your 
definition would imply that sex is like a virus.  Conclusion: your 
definition is at best incomplete.

> It is precisely *because* the GPL cannot be spread without assistance
> that it is similar to a computer virus (you hit a pet peeve of mine in
> [ruby-talk:75566] when you likened an email worm to a virus.  There is a
> clear, well-defined, distinction between the two).

The fact that the GPL doesn't jump around doesn't make it a virus.  In 
fact, it is precisely this that makes it different from a virus (in that a 
virus doesn't give you a choice as to whether you want to receive it).

I accept that an email worm is not a virus and I retract my comment.
However, if you are going to use a strong enough definition of "virus" to 
reject email worms, you must also reject the GPL being a virus.  Neither 
worms nor the GPL are viruses.

- -- 
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/DeGKnxE8DWHf+OcRAtlVAJ9sQ0idk+UrAn5iqgQjy9tXA7azNwCg7GcF
kfI/DpmcAkOovxxmGMGfs1k=
=0E+5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----