4 ms·

`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

`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

`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