FDL University-courses II

Wim De Smet fragmeat at yucom.be
Wed Jul 17 09:39:52 UTC 2002

Simo Sorce wrote:

>On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 08:28, Achim D. Brucker wrote:
>>project and thus avoiding the viral nature of the GPL).
>                                ^^^^^
>I think that's wrong speaking of GPL as viral!
>Persistent could be a better term if you really need to further define
>And why you do not speak of proprietary licenses as viral? They often do
>not permit free (as in freedom) redistribution of your code, and do so
>to a derived work of course (if even you will be able to derive
Very true. Companies like Microsoft keep on saying that the GPL is viral 
implementing it in your software would mean that you have to license the 
program under GPL. This is mainly the free as in free beer argument. 
Just because
our software is free would mean to Microsoft and others that they should 
be able
to use it in all ways they wish, without giving anything back to the 
Strange situation since using their code in your software will most 
certainly end you
up in court. (and you'll probably loose)



More information about the Discussion mailing list