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

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

James W. Thompson, II wrote:

> 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!"
> 

Is that you, Ken Brown?  How are things at AdTI these days?

James, no one forces you to accept the terms of GPL'ed software.  So
don't.  You might want to learn some etiquette too.

Every invitation comes with conditions.  It is polite to accept an
invitation if you intend to abide by the conditions.  It is polite
to decline the invitation too.

But it is unspeakably rude to say that your refusals to accept
invitations are completely the fault of the hosts, and that you
have a right to get better invitations, and/or ignore the terms.

You have some nerve to express mock surprise that a host resorts
to legal means to curb the behavior of poorly behaved guests.

The GPL has been chosen by more software authors than any other license
by a large margin.  That is not some kind of affront to YOUR rights.

No one forces you to build castles in the GPL sand.  Of COURSE you
SHOULD be sued if you try to take sand out of the sand box; it isn't
YOUR sand.

The anti-GPL argument is old and tired, and belongs off-list.
Please go tilt at sand castles somewhere else, or come into the
sandbox and enjoy all the wonderful creations.

And if you know him, please say "Hi" to Ken Brown from all of us
here on license-discuss.