3 ms·
Using the term "viral" is a pejorative term used explicitly to make the GPL seem dangerous. It's propaganda by the anti-copyleft crowd. Asking a representativ
by davexunit 10y ago
Using the term "viral" is a pejorative term used explicitly to make the GPL seem dangerous. It's propaganda by the anti-copyleft crowd. Asking a representative of a foundation that represents the most important copylefted software project in history to stop using anti-copyleft propaganda terms isn't asking them to "sugar coat" their words.
- snovv_crash 10y agoNonsense. It is an adjective that correctly describes the behaviour. If you want a non-viral GPL, then use the MPL2. It is exactly like the GPL, except it has a file-level firewall so that other files that it interacts with don't need to have the same licence, something the GPL is intolerant of. In every other sense the MPL2 provides all the protections the GPL does, it just doesn't consume the rest of the project you integrate it with.
- davexunit 10y agoIt DOESN'T "consume" the rest of your project. Your code does not have to use the GPL as its license!
- snovv_crash 10y agoUnless the GPL code matches the Compiler or OS exceptions, yes, you do have to relicense as GPL. This is what GPL detractors refer to when they use the word "viral".
- davexunit 10y agoYou don't have to relicense your code as GPL. You are confusing the copyright applied to your own code vs. distribution of the whole program.
- snovv_crash 10y agoTechnically you are correct, and I guess that's the best kind of correct. However the GPL does apply to non-GPL code in the case of distribution, which is what I was referring to. Perhaps with the advent of cloud computing and fast networks the more sticky problems of GPL code in proprietary systems become less of an issue. That said, I've already seen an uptick in AGPL code in some of the fields I'm interested in.