From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T12:16:17+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

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

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:08:12PM +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> > 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.

  1)  You were the one who offered the analogy.
  2)  I spent a total of one sentence on your analogy.
  3)  My paragraph ws not an analogy, it is a contrast.  I presented
      one property of viruses (that you can get them without your
      concent) which is not met by the GPL.

I would hope that you don't think my argument is weakended because I used 
the word "flu" instead of "virus".  But if it does, please replace the one 
instance of the fragment "the flue" by the fragment "a virus" and consider 
the distinction that I am trying to draw between a virus and the GPL.

I argue that the GPL is viral because there is a defining property of 
viral entities which is not met by the GPL.  Hence, the GPL is not a 
member of the category of viral entities.

This is my argument.
- -- 
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/Div6nxE8DWHf+OcRAoQ+AJ4x8NfjlWqE0RYY9VEAw5NWaOMvIACfS65x
iu2IcxISV1QcAWaotUgvkW0=
=0+w0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----