The essential feature of the GNU General Public License (GPL) is a defensive mechanism intended to preserve and protect the integrity and status of GPL licensed software as a public resource against covert appropriation and dissemination as someone's proprietary body of work. Thus ideas of antibody, anti-viral, and immune system seem appropriate as does the suggestion of the protection of genetic integrity.
Of course, the terms virus and anti-virus have already been corrupted to cover pretty much anything in software that attacks Microsoft operating systems and applications. Since Linux does not suffer from those things called virus and an important reason for that is its Open Source heritage, it seems fitting to think that Linux has an anti-virus provision in its software license. ;) I like thinking of the GPL as having a genetic integrity protection provision (GIPP). You could shorten it to just "genetic provision" or "genetic protection feature" (GPF) ;) or perhaps we could re-use BSOD ;) Rusty wrote: > I am impressed by Bhaskar's valient effort to >metaphorically immunize early against the use of the catchy >word "viral" . To carry the metaphor to Rabies, if you are >early enough with the "shots" , you can promote an antibody >response before the infectious agent really takes hold. >So this post is another "shot" in the series against the >v____ word. This v_____ word can easily get the mixed >meanings that "hacker" has in different contexts. > I still would like a single word other than "virile" >partly because it so easily lapses back to its near homonym. > After racking my brain for a single word I am somewhat at >a loss. > I do like the connotations of "pedigree" partly >because it represents continuity,inheritance, documentation, >and supporters/investors depend on it. > I also think that "virile" connotes propogation without >the intervention of judgment, whereas "pedigree" implies >access to the papers,lineage, and attributes of the legacy >resource with a chain of responsibility among all owners of >the managed genes. If propogation is rapid, its just because >of the market demand. If the price is right and you can >support your investment in the animal, you still want to >know the attributes with complete documentation. > > Open source is not about enticing code into use, it is >also about source pedigree. As one who does not expect to >poke around in code, I still depend on evidence that other >persons are doing so and they/we are a coherent community >propogating the proof of that good breeding. > >Rusty > > >K. S. Bhaskar wrote: >> Comments below. >> >> -- Bhaskar >> >> On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 20:54, Joel West wrote: >> >> [KSB] <...snip...> >> >>>* do you want a "viral" term or not, i.e. one that requires changes to >>>be given back (GPL) or not (BSD, Apache) >>>* do you want the "viral" clause to apply to new versions of the code >>>(as say the LGPL or the MPL, or anything with which it is combined >>>(the GPL). >> >> >> [KSB] In view of prior discussion on the possible negative connotation >> of "viral", perhaps we should use - and promote - the term "virile"... --------------------------------------- Jim Self Systems Architect, Lead Developer VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
