From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T11:36:45+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

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

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:27:47AM +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> 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.

The fundamental reason why the GPL is not viral is that the GPL does not 
force a change in the licensing of your code (recall my definition of 
"force" as "having only one option").

That is why the GPL is not viral.

You can get the flu without your consent (not wearing a bubble does not 
constitute consent).  Even after you include GPL code into yours, your 
code cannot become GPL without your consent.  This is the fundamental 
point.

The GPL is not like a bullet aimed at your direction.
- -- 
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/DiK3nxE8DWHf+OcRAqelAKDh5dF8NVkY6+0cvxkLVgnNnkvpFQCgvMkO
S9LAXQTLopcpnaMCfb2CQCg=
=SVyT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----