4 ms·

No, most of the source released is not under a virulent license. They are not required to provide it. Edit: oh wow, downvoted for stating objective facts that

by 4ad 11y ago

No, most of the source released is not under a virulent license. They are not required to provide it. Edit: oh wow, downvoted for stating objective facts that take seconds to verify.

icebraining 11y ago
I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise.
- 4ad 11y ago
  Viral licensing is a standard, established, and widely used term, which also has the property of using real words rather than invented neologisms which have imprecise and incorrect definitions (from POV of real-world usage in OSS) in dictionaries: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyleft.html http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyl... Inventing new words for concepts properly described by old words is what's annoying, and it's really imprecise when people outside the specialized field start to have different opinions about what the neologisms mean than the people inside the field who actually use them.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    You wrote that Apple would only be forced to distribute code under viral licenses, but licenses like MPL are hardly "viral" (they don't require you to distributed linked code) yet they still require people to distribute the original source. "Viral licenses" lose the nuance of weak copyleft. That's besides the inherit prejudice in the choice of the word "viral".
  - the_why_of_y 11y ago
    The wikipedia article cites as the source for the term various Microsoft executives; so you propose we should use the Microsoft propaganda terms to refer to open source licenses? Ah I see, you're just trolling.
- hobarrera 11y ago
  > I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise. "viral" is perfectly precise. One of properties of copyleft licences is that they are viral (and need to be by design). If being viral is a good or a bad thing, is another discussion.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    How is a weak copyleft license like MPL "viral", if it doesn't extend its reach to any other code?

by 4ad 11y ago

No, most of the source released is not under a virulent license. They are not required to provide it. Edit: oh wow, downvoted for stating objective facts that take seconds to verify.

icebraining 11y ago

I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise.

4ad 11y ago
Viral licensing is a standard, established, and widely used term, which also has the property of using real words rather than invented neologisms which have imprecise and incorrect definitions (from POV of real-world usage in OSS) in dictionaries: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyleft.html http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyl... Inventing new words for concepts properly described by old words is what's annoying, and it's really imprecise when people outside the specialized field start to have different opinions about what the neologisms mean than the people inside the field who actually use them.
- icebraining 11y ago
  You wrote that Apple would only be forced to distribute code under viral licenses, but licenses like MPL are hardly "viral" (they don't require you to distributed linked code) yet they still require people to distribute the original source. "Viral licenses" lose the nuance of weak copyleft. That's besides the inherit prejudice in the choice of the word "viral".
- the_why_of_y 11y ago
  The wikipedia article cites as the source for the term various Microsoft executives; so you propose we should use the Microsoft propaganda terms to refer to open source licenses? Ah I see, you're just trolling.
hobarrera 11y ago
> I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise. "viral" is perfectly precise. One of properties of copyleft licences is that they are viral (and need to be by design). If being viral is a good or a bad thing, is another discussion.
- icebraining 11y ago
  How is a weak copyleft license like MPL "viral", if it doesn't extend its reach to any other code?