From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-07-12T08:26:01+09:00
Subject: Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

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

I am really not sure of what your point is.  Instead of guessing, I'll ask 
you to clarify.

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 07:57:59AM +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> We seem to have come to a mutual understanding on everything else, except
> this one little point.  I hope I make this clear enough.

> The term "viral" refers to the GPL's permanent attachment to released 
> GPL applications (cannot be revoked)

  This is shared by the BSD license and many other commercial and
  non-commercial licenses.  Do you think that makes it viral?

> and how it replicates (all derived or subsequent linked-to
> applications must also be released under the GPL if they are released
> publicly at all.

Isn't this what I said earlier?
You think that the fact that the GPL encourages people to use the GPL 
makes it viral.
I think that the fact that the decision ultimately lies in you (even if 
you don't like the alternatives), even after the code has been included, 
makes it non-viral.

Am I misunderstanding your view in some way.

> Again, "viral" is more of a reference to it's replication properties and has
> nothing to do with whether or not the developer has a choice to use the GPL
> or not;

Is this different from what I said?
You think that the fact that the developer has a choice does not make the 
GPL non-viral.  I think it does.  So we just agree to disagree on this.


Let's see if I understand your definition of "viral".
According to your definition, anything that replicates such as laughter or 
rumors are viral.

Have I correctly understood our definition?  I might disagree, but I won't 
push the point.  I don't think that there's much point in arguing over how 
we define words.


> So, I do respect your right to keeping your opinion if you choose to
> maintain that the GPL does not have a viral nature, but I, personally, see
> no logic yet here that I can hang onto long enough to entertain that idea.

I appreciate your respecting my opinion.  I respect yours.  Just as you 
see faults in my definition of "viral", I see faults in yours, in that I 
don't think that the ability to replicate through the help of external 
entities suffices to make something a virus, since that would include too 
many things which I don't think are viruses.

I am willing to recognize the limitations of my definition, I hope you 
will recognize the limitations of yours and we can just agree to disagree 
on this.

- -- 
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/D0eDnxE8DWHf+OcRAoezAJ9vTeGoZJ8l7q0wqNUJNxwsaYQMCgCgzgns
dA2dUJnS7V1OOJbOZUglz2c=
=EUlS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----