Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

"Daniel Carrera" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> -----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:
>
>
> > 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.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me.  I never claimed the GPL was viral because
it "encouraged", "forced", "automatically imposed itself upon", "invoked
itself against the will of" the developers.  Never.  I know you argue that
point, but I am not arguing on the other side of it.

As clear as I can make this: the GPL has a viral nature because once it is
attached to a project and released, it has replicated itself identically and
that because it cannot ever be removed from that project, it will exist
forever, allowing it to replicate itself again onto any project that
intimately links to it or includes it directly in the future.

I don't know how else to say that in order to emphasize strongly enough that
I am saying NOTHING about the GPL's tendency to encourage author's to use
the GPL or include GPL code in their projects.  Apples and oranges; one has
nothing to do with the other.  The GPL's contagiousness, I would say, has
virtually EVERYTHING to do with the quality of the GPL code enticing the
author to use it and virtually NOTHING to do with the GPL itself.  Further,
however you look at it, the "encouraging" properties of the GPL (or lack
thereof) have NOTHING to do with the viral nature of the GPL.

Did that come across loud and clear?

> > 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.

Fair enough: I think choice has nothing to do with applying the term "viral"
to the GPL, and you think the fact that the developer has a choice
determines whether "viral" is applicable.

> 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.

Since laughter and rumors are not precisely biological organisms, I would
not call them virii, but I would say they have a viral nature because of the
way they spread from one place to another, yes.

The GPL is not a biological organism, so there are many differences between
it and an actual virus, however, the basic nature of a virus is to attach
and replicate, and this is what I feel the GPL does.  No, it is not a virus,
but it does have a viral nature, just like laughter.

> > 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.

Ask yourself this question: do our definitions of "viral" truly differ, or
are you simply a proponent of the GPL and don't want a term that has so much
"emotional baggage" applied to it?

My gut feeling here is, you are a GPL proponent, and our definitions of when
something has a "viral nature" are virtually the same, but you are
reflexively protecting the GPL against the term "viral."  You might be
surprised to know that I, too, am somewhat of a proponent of the GPL, except
we differ in that I don't see the term "viral" as being all that negative
(after all, laughter isn't negative generally).  In fact, when I think of
the term "viral" as applied to the GPL I imagine Microsoft catching
something very nasty and suddenly the Windows desktop is ported to sit on
top of Linux rather than DOS (or whatever they are calling their globular
subsystem these days).

Is it possible you are just being defensive from the term "viral?"

    Sean O'Dell