From: Samuel Tesla <samuel@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T12:48:30+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> writes:

> Fair enough.  But the fact that the alternatives are not appealing to you 
> does not make the GPL viral.

I probably should have been clearer in my clarification ;)

I actually think that viral isn't the best word, however I also think
that even the adjective viral is really only meant as a metaphor.
When people say the GPL is viral, they are refering to precisely the
phenomenon I (and countless others) have identified: the fact that the
GPL tends to spread based on people's desire to use the functionality
provided by incumbent GPL'd code.  

Honestly, the analogy to a virus really ends there, imo.


> I might agree that this makes the GPL anoying, upsetting and undesirable.
> I also agree that this puts pressure on you to choose to GPL your code.

Honestly, this is more along my line of thinking.  I think the GPL
really bites because of the whole derivative works thing.  S'why I'll
go to great efforts to not license my code under the GPL (keep in mind
that I'm not a big fan of IP in general, but I play by the rules).

I also think a better approach would be to say this: If you don't like
the GPL write the author an email.  Is it really that hard?