5 ms·

Please stop using the word "infect" when talking about GPL. Infect is a negatively biased term. It's not balanced regarding the benefits GPL software brought to

by wiz21c 6y ago

Please stop using the word "infect" when talking about GPL. Infect is a negatively biased term. It's not balanced regarding the benefits GPL software brought to many people.

meetups323 6y ago
`Infect` accurately describes a particular view of GPL. This is akin to saying "please stop holding that opinion, it it doesn't match my own opinion, therefore you shouldn't hold it either"
- orra 6y ago
  A term can be technically accurate, but biased because of its connotations. "Infect" has incredibly negative connotations. Why not say cross pollinate? Recently in the UK we have pundits talking about migrants as "infection vectors". This dehumanisation of humans coincides with the government illegally and immorally banning asylum seekers.
  - meetups323 6y ago
    The bias is the point. It's expressing an opinion. This isn't a government scientific report where the language should be as devoid of emotion as possible, this is an internet chatboard. Expressing opinions is the whole point.
    - orra 6y ago
      This is progress: previously you were pretending the term "infect" is neutral. People are entitled to opinions, but we're entitled to call out negative ones.
      - meetups323 6y ago
        > previously you were pretending the term "infect" is neutral. Nope. I said "`Infect` accurately describes a particular view of GPL." This is true, and it says nothing about that point of view being neutral. In fact, quite the opposite.
        orra 6y ago
        > This is true, and it says nothing about that point of view being neutral. In fact, quite the opposite. Maybe I should have said 'legitimate'. Basically, I disagree with your prior indignation.
    - jcelerier 6y ago
      > Expressing opinions is the whole point. To say I was thinking it was about actual arguments the whole time
      - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
        Would you need an argument to support it if it wasn't opinion?
        jcelerier 6y ago
        ... yes ? That's how debate works
        meetups323 6y ago
        Debate is literally all about contrasting opinions. >I feel X is the solution to Y! >No! Z is clearly the solution to Y.
        jcelerier 6y ago
        Those are not arguments and not a proper debate (which is something that has quite codified rules due to people studying that for 2000+ years about what constitutes or not a correct argument - see this to look what aren't : https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6 https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6). Do you really not study that in school ? This is scary
        meetups323 6y ago
        Do you really think hn should be exclusively formal arguments presented in an emotionless manner at the expense of personal flair, enforced by limitations on the diction permissible when discussing particular topics? That's scary.
        jcelerier 6y ago
        ... pretty much yes ? that's definitely what I'm here for. If I want emotion I read a novel. Here I just want raw information in order to optimize my work & life, or discuss on the projects that are of interest to me in order to make sure that there is enough public interest on them so that they keep being maintained until I don't need them anymore. But then, I long for the end of individuality, which may not be your opinion. :-)
  - munk-a 6y ago
    I think there's a real difference with this usage compared to "infection vectors" as used by pundits - everyone in the UK is an infection vector and migrants aren't particularly more likely to be infected than any other travelers[1] so their usage is a clear mis-attribution intended to slander a class of people. I also, honestly, will tend to give a lot more benefit of the doubt to slander when it comes to living breathing humans compared to software licenses but I'm trying to suppress that in this line of discussion. 1. As far as what I've seen reported.
- crazypython 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26199273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26199273
- II2II 6y ago
  I periodically say things with a positive connotation then flip to saying it with a negative connotation in the same paragraph. More often than not, it is intended to illustrate how we say things is intended to shut down conversation. Claiming that the GPL infects software is very much one of those cases. Worse yet, it is an inaccurate statement since the GPL does not infect software. The most you can say is that some people choose not to modify, extend, or link to GPL software since they do not want the apply the terms of the GPL to their own work. That is a legitimate concern. Implying that the use of GPL software along side proprietary software somehow infects the proprietary software is intended to set up a negative connotation that has no basis in reality.
- d0mine 6y ago
  it is like the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" depending on your bias same people/things may be called differently
choeger 6y ago
I think the usage of the term tells you something about the managers that use(d) it: For them it was really like an infection. Their developers came in contact with that free software and all of a sudden their big enterprise corp had legal obligations. It must have come as a real surprise that enforceable licenses are not a one-way road from enterprises to consumers.
danieka 6y ago
Maybe we can say that GPL is contagious instead?
munk-a 6y ago
Infect does have a negative connotation but I can't really think of a non-negative term with the same viral connotations and that side of the connotation is rather accurate. The GPL aggressively applies itself to full code bases that adopt it - it might actually be a bit more accurate to call it cancerous I guess? At any rate it is a rather negative word but I don't think it's fair to say that "infect" is a mis-categorization of the behavior of the GPL. And all this from someone who does personally appreciate MIT licenses more but is quite pro-GPL licensing on code.
- temac 6y ago
  Your whole understanding of the GPL is a mis-categorization of its behavior. The GPL does not "aggressively applies itself to full code bases that adopt it", that sentence is even completely meaningless. I can't even find the beginning of what you wanted to convey regardless of the side I attempt to take it. If a "code base adopts the GPL", then yes ok "it" adopts it, is there a problem? Why would anything attempt to "aggressively" apply the GPL licence to a code base that adopted the GPL? If it is rather than the GPL aggressively applies itself up to the point code bases that adopt it are fully converted to it but were not before, then that still makes no sense obviously because 1. a license is not sentient and won't attempt to aggressively do things by itself, but also 2. because code under other licences exists in code bases and systems containing code licensed under the GPL -- some under licences compatible with the GPL, other under licences not even compatible with the GPL. To finish with that characterization, please provides the plenty of examples that should surely exists of projects that had to switch to the GPL against their "will" because of its supposed "infectious" or "cancerous" nature (not just dual licence or use some compatible licence, switching). And then please provides among this list, the list of the projects where it happened for another reason than lack of due diligence by the copyright holders of pieces of code supposedly "infected" or tainted with "cancer" against their will. A final note: there at least 2 more ways (that are not open-sourcing) if somebody did a mistake and based a work on GPL licensed code but should not have done that because the conditions of the GPL are not appropriate for it: rebase the project on non-GPL licensed software; or stop it - or at least stop its distribution. Nobody will even manage to "retroactively" 100% force you to open-source proprietary software. And nobody can force you to change an open-source licensed code compatible with the GPL to the GPL itself, I don't even see what would be the point of asking to do that change.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
It's an opinion of what the GPL is and by definition that's okay whether negative to you or not. I personally think it's kind of funny even though I strongly support both GPL and MIT as valid methods of opening up software. My opinion of "infect" is also valid as is yours. That's the beauty of free speech.

by wiz21c 6y ago

Please stop using the word "infect" when talking about GPL. Infect is a negatively biased term. It's not balanced regarding the benefits GPL software brought to many people.

meetups323 6y ago

`Infect` accurately describes a particular view of GPL. This is akin to saying "please stop holding that opinion, it it doesn't match my own opinion, therefore you shouldn't hold it either"

orra 6y ago
A term can be technically accurate, but biased because of its connotations. "Infect" has incredibly negative connotations. Why not say cross pollinate? Recently in the UK we have pundits talking about migrants as "infection vectors". This dehumanisation of humans coincides with the government illegally and immorally banning asylum seekers.
- meetups323 6y ago
  The bias is the point. It's expressing an opinion. This isn't a government scientific report where the language should be as devoid of emotion as possible, this is an internet chatboard. Expressing opinions is the whole point.
  - orra 6y ago
    This is progress: previously you were pretending the term "infect" is neutral. People are entitled to opinions, but we're entitled to call out negative ones.
    - meetups323 6y ago
      > previously you were pretending the term "infect" is neutral. Nope. I said "`Infect` accurately describes a particular view of GPL." This is true, and it says nothing about that point of view being neutral. In fact, quite the opposite.
      - orra 6y ago
        > This is true, and it says nothing about that point of view being neutral. In fact, quite the opposite. Maybe I should have said 'legitimate'. Basically, I disagree with your prior indignation.
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    > Expressing opinions is the whole point. To say I was thinking it was about actual arguments the whole time
    - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
      Would you need an argument to support it if it wasn't opinion?
      - jcelerier 6y ago
        ... yes ? That's how debate works
        meetups323 6y ago
        Debate is literally all about contrasting opinions. >I feel X is the solution to Y! >No! Z is clearly the solution to Y.
        jcelerier 6y ago
        Those are not arguments and not a proper debate (which is something that has quite codified rules due to people studying that for 2000+ years about what constitutes or not a correct argument - see this to look what aren't : https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6 https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6). Do you really not study that in school ? This is scary
        meetups323 6y ago
        Do you really think hn should be exclusively formal arguments presented in an emotionless manner at the expense of personal flair, enforced by limitations on the diction permissible when discussing particular topics? That's scary.
        jcelerier 6y ago
        ... pretty much yes ? that's definitely what I'm here for. If I want emotion I read a novel. Here I just want raw information in order to optimize my work & life, or discuss on the projects that are of interest to me in order to make sure that there is enough public interest on them so that they keep being maintained until I don't need them anymore. But then, I long for the end of individuality, which may not be your opinion. :-)
- munk-a 6y ago
  I think there's a real difference with this usage compared to "infection vectors" as used by pundits - everyone in the UK is an infection vector and migrants aren't particularly more likely to be infected than any other travelers[1] so their usage is a clear mis-attribution intended to slander a class of people. I also, honestly, will tend to give a lot more benefit of the doubt to slander when it comes to living breathing humans compared to software licenses but I'm trying to suppress that in this line of discussion. 1. As far as what I've seen reported.
crazypython 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26199273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26199273
II2II 6y ago
I periodically say things with a positive connotation then flip to saying it with a negative connotation in the same paragraph. More often than not, it is intended to illustrate how we say things is intended to shut down conversation. Claiming that the GPL infects software is very much one of those cases. Worse yet, it is an inaccurate statement since the GPL does not infect software. The most you can say is that some people choose not to modify, extend, or link to GPL software since they do not want the apply the terms of the GPL to their own work. That is a legitimate concern. Implying that the use of GPL software along side proprietary software somehow infects the proprietary software is intended to set up a negative connotation that has no basis in reality.
d0mine 6y ago
it is like the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" depending on your bias same people/things may be called differently

choeger 6y ago

I think the usage of the term tells you something about the managers that use(d) it: For them it was really like an infection. Their developers came in contact with that free software and all of a sudden their big enterprise corp had legal obligations. It must have come as a real surprise that enforceable licenses are not a one-way road from enterprises to consumers.

danieka 6y ago

Maybe we can say that GPL is contagious instead?

munk-a 6y ago

Infect does have a negative connotation but I can't really think of a non-negative term with the same viral connotations and that side of the connotation is rather accurate. The GPL aggressively applies itself to full code bases that adopt it - it might actually be a bit more accurate to call it cancerous I guess? At any rate it is a rather negative word but I don't think it's fair to say that "infect" is a mis-categorization of the behavior of the GPL. And all this from someone who does personally appreciate MIT licenses more but is quite pro-GPL licensing on code.

temac 6y ago
Your whole understanding of the GPL is a mis-categorization of its behavior. The GPL does not "aggressively applies itself to full code bases that adopt it", that sentence is even completely meaningless. I can't even find the beginning of what you wanted to convey regardless of the side I attempt to take it. If a "code base adopts the GPL", then yes ok "it" adopts it, is there a problem? Why would anything attempt to "aggressively" apply the GPL licence to a code base that adopted the GPL? If it is rather than the GPL aggressively applies itself up to the point code bases that adopt it are fully converted to it but were not before, then that still makes no sense obviously because 1. a license is not sentient and won't attempt to aggressively do things by itself, but also 2. because code under other licences exists in code bases and systems containing code licensed under the GPL -- some under licences compatible with the GPL, other under licences not even compatible with the GPL. To finish with that characterization, please provides the plenty of examples that should surely exists of projects that had to switch to the GPL against their "will" because of its supposed "infectious" or "cancerous" nature (not just dual licence or use some compatible licence, switching). And then please provides among this list, the list of the projects where it happened for another reason than lack of due diligence by the copyright holders of pieces of code supposedly "infected" or tainted with "cancer" against their will. A final note: there at least 2 more ways (that are not open-sourcing) if somebody did a mistake and based a work on GPL licensed code but should not have done that because the conditions of the GPL are not appropriate for it: rebase the project on non-GPL licensed software; or stop it - or at least stop its distribution. Nobody will even manage to "retroactively" 100% force you to open-source proprietary software. And nobody can force you to change an open-source licensed code compatible with the GPL to the GPL itself, I don't even see what would be the point of asking to do that change.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

It's an opinion of what the GPL is and by definition that's okay whether negative to you or not. I personally think it's kind of funny even though I strongly support both GPL and MIT as valid methods of opening up software. My opinion of "infect" is also valid as is yours. That's the beauty of free speech.