Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:44:48AM -0000, amado.alves wrote:
> "...The GPL license is not viral..."
>  
> I sense there are two senses to this word "viral". I'm really 
> interested in this so I'll appreciate any input. One sense is the GPL is 
> viral because it spreads itself over derivatives i.e. forces derivatives 
> to be distributed under GPL (if distributed at all, that is subsumed).* 
> Is there another sense, perhaps more 'legal'? Thanks a lot.


Ah but you see, the GPL does not FORCE itself.

If you write a program, only you can determine what license it is released 
under.  If you "accidentally" insert GPL code in it, your work does not 
automatically become GPL, nor will you be forced to use the GPL, since you 
will always have the choice of removing the code you inserted.

The word "viral" has several negative implications which are false:

  (a) That it forces itself.
  (b) That you don't have a choice.
  (c) That your work might "suddenly" become GPL without your concent.

This is what a virus does.  The GPL does not do that.


The GPL does encourage people to use the GPL license (because if you do 
you get the right to distribute the code you are interested in).  But this 
is not the same thing as being viral.

If I wrote a license that said "if you use this license I'll send you 
$10" would you call it viral?

The only way you can call the GPL viral is by saying that anything that 
encourages its own replication is viral.  But that's a stupid definition 
as it applies to every living being, plus inanimate things like laughter 
and thermal energy.

I hope this makes sense.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3