3 ms·

McCLIM is licensed under lgpl-2.1+ and does not impose its license on applications. That said using the word 'infect' seems to imply that copyleft licenses are

McCLIM is licensed under lgpl-2.1+ and does not impose its license on applications. That said using the word 'infect' seems to imply that copyleft licenses are a disease; this does not sound like a serious discourse argument.

analognoise 5y ago
I thought the 'infect' was just used because it's a 'viral' license - it fits the medical analogy/broad usage of the terms 'viral' and 'infect'. Is there a standard way to put it that doesn't have negative connotations?
- medstrom 5y ago
  Infect implies it's involuntary. Nothing's involuntary in a new project like this. The standard way to put it is "so we went with GPL" or even just "it's GPL".
Nzen 5y ago
I affirm that I misrepresented McCLIM's license despite looking directly at it. I appreciate that you corrected my error. Depending on how modularly Second Climacs combines McCLIM into itself, it is possibly LGPL licensed or, at minimum, released under the Github terms of service: view and fork. I am not in a position to assess the level of integration Strandh has opted for. The Gnu Public licenses are designed to proscribe the minimal license features required for works combined with those released under GP licenses. No, my assessment is not a serious argument, it's an incorrect puzzle solution, during lunch.
samatman 5y ago
It's fairly anodyne to describe GPL3 and friends as "viral" licenses, is it not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license Stallman doesn't like it, but RMS is renowned for the scope and breadth of things he doesn't like. To say that something "viral" can "infect" something else is the natural extension of the metaphor. I can see not liking it, but it doesn't scan to me as unserious or in bad faith to say this. Edit: this kind of language goes both ways between copyleft and permissive camps in FOSS circles. I see objections to permissive licenses phrased in terms such as "improvements to MIT code can become locked away inside proprietary software", which only works if you consider proprietary software to be a prison, when this is in fact an intended outcome of permissive licensing.

analognoise 5y ago

I thought the 'infect' was just used because it's a 'viral' license - it fits the medical analogy/broad usage of the terms 'viral' and 'infect'. Is there a standard way to put it that doesn't have negative connotations?

medstrom 5y ago
Infect implies it's involuntary. Nothing's involuntary in a new project like this. The standard way to put it is "so we went with GPL" or even just "it's GPL".

Nzen 5y ago

I affirm that I misrepresented McCLIM's license despite looking directly at it. I appreciate that you corrected my error. Depending on how modularly Second Climacs combines McCLIM into itself, it is possibly LGPL licensed or, at minimum, released under the Github terms of service: view and fork. I am not in a position to assess the level of integration Strandh has opted for. The Gnu Public licenses are designed to proscribe the minimal license features required for works combined with those released under GP licenses. No, my assessment is not a serious argument, it's an incorrect puzzle solution, during lunch.

samatman 5y ago

It's fairly anodyne to describe GPL3 and friends as "viral" licenses, is it not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license Stallman doesn't like it, but RMS is renowned for the scope and breadth of things he doesn't like. To say that something "viral" can "infect" something else is the natural extension of the metaphor. I can see not liking it, but it doesn't scan to me as unserious or in bad faith to say this. Edit: this kind of language goes both ways between copyleft and permissive camps in FOSS circles. I see objections to permissive licenses phrased in terms such as "improvements to MIT code can become locked away inside proprietary software", which only works if you consider proprietary software to be a prison, when this is in fact an intended outcome of permissive licensing.