From: Sean O'Dell Date: 2003-07-11T11:27:47+09:00 Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby. "Daniel Carrera" wrote in message news:20030711015500.GB1960@math.umd.edu... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 10:47:12AM +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote: > > > It's moderately significant. In the context of the "viral" nature of the > > GPL, it's the equivalent of wearing a plastic bubble suit. You can choose > > to protect yourself from it, sure. But you can also choose to protect > > yourself from the flu. > > I think that we've made progress. At least I've conveyed what piece of > the if statement I am discussing. > > Now, I really think that the GPL is different from a bubble-suit. You do > not need to take any action to protect from the GPL. If you end up with > GPL code in your application, and you do not take any action, your > application is still not GPL. > > You do not have to do anything to prevent your applications from becomming > GPL, even after foreign GPL code has been included. > > > Having this choice doesn't determine whether or not the GPL is viral, > > just like wearing a plastic bubble suit doesn't make the flu non-viral; > > If I thought that your bubble analogy was correct, in that you have to > protect youself, I would agree with this statement. > > I believe that your bubble analogy is not correct. You do not need to do > something to prevent your code from being GPL. Thus, I disagree with your > claim that the GPL is viral. I think chipping away at analogies is simply arguing, not exchanging real ideas. I recognize you don't feel the GPL is viral, but your argument that to simply not include GPL code into your application makes the GPL itself non-viral in nature fails to convince me. To me, that's like saying a bullet fired from a gun aimed in my direction is not deadly if I don't step in front of it. If the above is the only argument you can provide for why the GPL is non-viral, then I believe we are at an impass. Sean O'Dell