Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>> Here it starts not making sense to me. This means (if I understand you
>> correctly) that pretty much every software is a virus
> 
> Not *is* a virus, but *has viral properties*, to so extent. This is just
> my opinion, not a mathematical truth. I look at how something behaves at
> the large, not how individual dicesions are made. In this respect GPL
> and Windows have a high viral quality.

Ok. I haven't expressed myself well. The question still stands (now
slightly rephrased): Using this meaning of "viral quality", is there
(successful, in actual use) software that doesn't have it? 

You say that GPL software has it, and that Windows software has it. I think
that covers probably 80% of existing software (just a rough guess).
Extending the argument, any software designed to run on Linux also has the
same "viral quality" (of requiring GPL software to run it, in this case).
That probably brings it up to 90%. Then add all the software that is
written for /any/ specific platform (because, of course, they also have
that "viral quality" of requiring/promoting their specific platform).

So what software doesn't have that "viral quality" you are talking about? 

Gerhard

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