4 ms·

Taint is shorter. BTW: I think you answered a different question than the one I asked.

davexunit 10y ago
Taint is pejorative. Why must you choose negative terms to describe copyleft? Words matter, and words like "taint" and "viral" have been chosen for the purpose of harming copyleft's reputation.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Kind of agree. But what do you call it that describes it in a non-pejorative way? I am thankful for GPL and GPL-ed sw. I just find some of the advocacy for it a bit annoying.
- ThrowawayR2 10y ago
  > Why must you choose negative terms to describe copyleft? Because there's an unfortunate kernel of truth to it? From the standpoint of people using any other license, copyleft code (intentionally) causes an undesirable side effect of attaching its license terms to your code base if the slightest bit of it is merged in, whether through a developer's carelessness, ignorance, or otherwise. And the effects may not be noticed for quite some time. It takes vigilance and developer education to prevent this from happening. One struggles to think of a term that doesn't have pejorative connotations to describe this effect. I have yet to see anyone suggest a credible alternative. (And please don't suggest "protective"; that's so transparently doublespeak that it's surprising that it ever took off. Things that are protective don't just reach out and latch onto other things they are accidentally brought into contact with.) EDIT: minor rewording for clarity
  - Nursie 10y ago
    You make it sound like the code does this itself! It doesn't reach out, it grants you a ton of rights in exchange for you preserving those rights downstrea. in projects you use it in. If that is not a good tradeoff for you, don't use it. You make it sound like an active, infectious agent.
    - ThrowawayR2 10y ago
      You do bring up a good point and I've adjusted the wording to reflect that active agency (i.e. a developer) is involved. Nevertheless, as I pointed out in an earlier post, quite a number of developers are not educated in the specifics of open source licenses or IP law or even simply don't care and this can cause problems in codebases that aren't copyleft licensed.
      - Nursie 10y ago
        Yes, this is something I've seen around quite a lot. There's some just don't know, some take the attitude "it's on the net so I can use it" and then I've encountered people who are scared into going to the other extreme - linux is GPL therefore we have to release our software product on BSD if we don't want to open source the whole thing! Some of the big corporates are quite hot on education in this area, but their actual FOSS-related proceses can be byzantine and weird.
jimktrains2 10y ago
I think I answered the asked question. By using the GPL the developer is choosing to have the rest of their application abide by the GPL, just like the LGPL or MIT/BSD licenses. The later examples require fewer changes, however, but in principle you're still abiding by the license.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  I asked what you call the thing that GPL-ed software do - not whose choice it was etc. Basically: "if you compile GPL-licensed sw with your code the GPL-ed code <something something> so your code becomes GPL-licensed as well."
  - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
    Not true, your code does not "become" GPL. IF you release your code it will be in violation of the GPL and you can: unpublish the release, or switch to a different non-GPL codebase, or reimplement the GPL part, or ask the authors to give you a dispensation or switch your code to GPL. IF you don't release it and use the code internally you are fine. It's at least 6 options, only one of which requires licensing your code as GPL.
  - slrz 10y ago
    I doesn't do anything. By including a GPL-licensed work into your software, you promise not to place any additional restrictions on the result. And it's really just that. It doesn't force any license on your code. You can still release your individual contributions under a BSD-style license[1]. The one thing you can't do is placing additional restrictions onto your peers. [1] The combined work may be effectively distributable only under GPL-like terms, of course.

Taint is pejorative. Why must you choose negative terms to describe copyleft? Words matter, and words like "taint" and "viral" have been chosen for the purpose of harming copyleft's reputation.

reitanqild 10y ago
Kind of agree. But what do you call it that describes it in a non-pejorative way? I am thankful for GPL and GPL-ed sw. I just find some of the advocacy for it a bit annoying.
ThrowawayR2 10y ago
> Why must you choose negative terms to describe copyleft? Because there's an unfortunate kernel of truth to it? From the standpoint of people using any other license, copyleft code (intentionally) causes an undesirable side effect of attaching its license terms to your code base if the slightest bit of it is merged in, whether through a developer's carelessness, ignorance, or otherwise. And the effects may not be noticed for quite some time. It takes vigilance and developer education to prevent this from happening. One struggles to think of a term that doesn't have pejorative connotations to describe this effect. I have yet to see anyone suggest a credible alternative. (And please don't suggest "protective"; that's so transparently doublespeak that it's surprising that it ever took off. Things that are protective don't just reach out and latch onto other things they are accidentally brought into contact with.) EDIT: minor rewording for clarity
- Nursie 10y ago
  You make it sound like the code does this itself! It doesn't reach out, it grants you a ton of rights in exchange for you preserving those rights downstrea. in projects you use it in. If that is not a good tradeoff for you, don't use it. You make it sound like an active, infectious agent.
  - ThrowawayR2 10y ago
    You do bring up a good point and I've adjusted the wording to reflect that active agency (i.e. a developer) is involved. Nevertheless, as I pointed out in an earlier post, quite a number of developers are not educated in the specifics of open source licenses or IP law or even simply don't care and this can cause problems in codebases that aren't copyleft licensed.
    - Nursie 10y ago
      Yes, this is something I've seen around quite a lot. There's some just don't know, some take the attitude "it's on the net so I can use it" and then I've encountered people who are scared into going to the other extreme - linux is GPL therefore we have to release our software product on BSD if we don't want to open source the whole thing! Some of the big corporates are quite hot on education in this area, but their actual FOSS-related proceses can be byzantine and weird.

jimktrains2 10y ago

I think I answered the asked question. By using the GPL the developer is choosing to have the rest of their application abide by the GPL, just like the LGPL or MIT/BSD licenses. The later examples require fewer changes, however, but in principle you're still abiding by the license.

reitanqild 10y ago
I asked what you call the thing that GPL-ed software do - not whose choice it was etc. Basically: "if you compile GPL-licensed sw with your code the GPL-ed code <something something> so your code becomes GPL-licensed as well."
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago
  Not true, your code does not "become" GPL. IF you release your code it will be in violation of the GPL and you can: unpublish the release, or switch to a different non-GPL codebase, or reimplement the GPL part, or ask the authors to give you a dispensation or switch your code to GPL. IF you don't release it and use the code internally you are fine. It's at least 6 options, only one of which requires licensing your code as GPL.
- slrz 10y ago
  I doesn't do anything. By including a GPL-licensed work into your software, you promise not to place any additional restrictions on the result. And it's really just that. It doesn't force any license on your code. You can still release your individual contributions under a BSD-style license[1]. The one thing you can't do is placing additional restrictions onto your peers. [1] The combined work may be effectively distributable only under GPL-like terms, of course.