Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

[amado.alves]

<<
> 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.
>>

Sorry, I still think "GPL forces itself upon distributed derivatives" is a true sentence.

<<
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.
>>

Irrelevant. The issue is distributed derivatives.

<<
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.
>>

Sorry, this is faulty. For (a) see above.

For (b) I do NOT have a choice of license for distributed derivatives of GPLed work. Basically you say I the choice to distribute or not. That is trivial, and not even always true: distribution is a business *imperative*.

The meaning of (c) is fuzzy to say the least.

<<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).>>

I only need to license if I distribute!

<<But this is not the same thing as being viral...>>

For me it is. Other words are: "infecting" (as 'bad' as viral), "absorbing" (better), "reciprocating" (maybe the best).

Thanks.

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