"viral" (was RE: Licensing options for firmware)
evan at bad.dynu.ca
Wed Apr 6 14:44:15 UTC 2005
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:44:12AM -0500, James W. Thompson, II wrote:
> > > Some restrictions (like the viral clauses of the GPL or LGPL) [...]
> > Oof. Is there a reason you use that awful term, "viral", instead of
> > "copyleft"? Ignorance, hostility, or something else?
> Because the clause requires the propogation of the GPL licensing
> regime for no really good reason. It is viral, to sugar coat it is the
> ignorant thing to do. The GPL should do more like the Sleepycat and
> require code release under reasonable terms. Heck, since the GPL has
> no problem being verbose you could even elaborate on it for pages upon
> pages and still not have to require that the GPL be the license used.
> How else would you describe the forced propogation of a single license
> like this clause induces? 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!"
More information about the License-discuss