4 ms·
At the very least it doesn't seem to have loosened the terms of the GPL - if the virality clause had been deemed invalid, Katzer would presumably have been able
by pmjordan 17y ago
At the very least it doesn't seem to have loosened the terms of the GPL - if the virality clause had been deemed invalid, Katzer would presumably have been able to use the code for his purposes. The GPL does however contain a defensive clause that effectively reverts to "all rights reserved" if the license is not accepted, so who knows.
- ajross 17y agoIt's worth pointing out that the "virality clause" doesn't actually exist; it's just spin from old internet flames. The GPL says that derived works can only be distributed under the GPL. The restriction is on distribution, not license. If you accidentally (or whatever) write something like a gdb port to a new language and try to sell it under a proprietary license, the FSF can make you stop selling it under that license. But that's it. Your new code doesn't "suddenly become GPL and public". It's your code, and you get to decide the license, even if you can't legally give it to anyone else. I guess if you want to pick a metaphor, it's been quarantined. It hasn't been "infected".
- Herring 17y agoIf you somehow got Windows source code into your program, you couldn't distribute it without getting sued. If you liked FUD, you could say the Microsoft license (do not distribute without MS permission) has spread to your code. That's just how all licenses work. If you don't agree to the terms, don't use the code.