From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T12:08:12+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

"Daniel Carrera" <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:20030711023639.GB2168@math.umd.edu...
> -----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.

Again, chipping away at analogies does not consitute communicating real
ideas.  You've found flaws in my analogies, bravo.  However, as anyone
knows, an analogy is, by its very definition, the drawing of connections
between two otherwise dissimilar things.  Since they are two different
things, naturally you can find the "dissimilaries" and then go on to say
that they are, in fact, not alike at all based on those observations.  That
does not invalidate the analogy.  You haven't produced any real arguments as
to why the GPL is not viral, and thus, I continue to have the opinion that
it is.

    Sean O'Dell