Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Here we go again... I don't see anything more "viral" in this license
> than in most commercial source code licenses. These usually put some
> severe restrictions on what you can do with the code. You are usually
> not allowed to publish a competing product based on their code, for
> example.

That's highly restrictive but not viral.  I think the term viral is use here
to point out how the GPL propagates itself.  "Infectious" would probably
have been a better term.  Unfortunately "viral" can mean a lot of other
things, most of them bad, which is where your objection is coming from.
Replace "viral" with "self-propagating" and it will probably make more
sense.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist