"viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)

John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth.com
Wed Apr 6 14:09:43 UTC 2005

James W. Thompson, II scripsit:

> Because the clause requires the propogation of the GPL licensing
> regime for no really good reason.

The FSF thought its reasons good and still does.

> It is viral, to sugar coat it is the ignorant thing to do.

"Hostility".  Check.

> The GPL should do more like the Sleepycat and require code release
> under reasonable terms.

When the GPL was released there were no other reasonable terms.

> How else would you describe the forced propogation of a single license
> like this clause induces?

Force?  You dare to speak of force because something is generously
shared with you on terms, rather than being given to you lock stock
and barrel?

> My best thoughts are viral, infectious, perhaps compulsary would be
> more disarming, but the effect is still the same: "Do what we say and
> do it our way or get sued!"

As opposed to the kind and gentle attitude of the perpetrators of
proprietary software.

John Cowan  jcowan at reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list