> 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. Seen from a company perspective (not from an individual programmer or program manager) it definitely has viral properties. > 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 I would not object to that either. > 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). Ok, thats a vieuwpoint, but I think the viral (or maybe better: contaminating) properties of GPL are an important issue. But don't take me wrong: I admire the concept! IMHO the GPL is definitely the greatest creation of RS, I rate it even above GCC. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist