From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-07-11T12:49:13+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

"Daniel Carrera" <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:20030711031611.GA2225@math.umd.edu...
> -----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.

Take a look at this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virus

Search for "a virus cannot infect other computers without assistance" on
that page.  A virus, according to "The Free On-line Dictionary of
Computing," requires action on the part of the victim to work.  I would say
that contradicts you view "that you can get them without your [consent]."

If that's not convicing, then perhaps you could perhaps provide some sort of
reference that shows that one defining property of a virus is that it
infects its host without consent, and that if it requires action on the part
of the host in order to succefully infect, it must not be a virus.

As a matter of personal opinion, I reject that a virus is only a virus when
it can infect without consent, and further reject the notion that since the
GPL requires action on the part of the developer in order to replicate
itself, it must not be a virus.

    Sean O'Dell