Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>> Stating that the GPL is "viral" is sending a bad message:
> 
> So what? It is still true.

First of all, I think the expression "viral" in this context is not a
factual statement (which could be true or false), it is an analogy. I don't
think an analogy can be "true". It can be good or bad, more or less
appropriate, but not "true". 

Second, I don't think "virus" is a good analogy. I at least can't come up
with a good relationship between the major characteristics of GPL code and
a virus.

The most outstanding characteristic of a virus -- and the one that is
probably for most people the strongest association -- is that it inflicts
damage without the damaged entity having a choice. I don't see that in GPL
code at all. There's always the choice to use it or not to use it. Calling
the GPL license a virus in a code that's protected by it (the cost is that
derived works have to be GPL'ed) is not different from calling the
dependency of Windows software on the Windows OS a virus (the cost is that
the user has to use and therefore buy or have bought a Windows license).
Both are not appropriate analogies, IMO, as in both cases there is a
conscious choice involved -- that's not usually the case with viruses
(whether biological or software).

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist