Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > It is definitely 'viral' if you want continue using the code.
Ah, so a "viral licence" is one where you may only continue using the code if you comply with its licence terms. How does that differ from a non-viral licence? My point, of course, is that the term "viral" on this context really doesn't mean anything at all: It's a scare tactic aimed at naive people who don't understand how licensing works, and for whom open source is new and potentially unsettling. >> The way things work in the _real_ world is precisely as your >> most-recent wording (quoted above) describes. The offending >> party halts its violation, takes a big hit of unfavourable >> public relations, maybe mumbles a few words of apology, and >> the world moves on. > > Ehhh??? What about all those other projects where > commercial companies have indeed contributed code back > to a project because they want to use it and it was GPLed. Thank you for making my point _for_ me. They contributed code because they wanted to participate in the development process and reap the benefits. Had they not liked the licensing, they would have had the option of using something else. Same as with proprietary code. -- Cheers, "That article and its poster have been cancelled." Rick Moen -- David B. O'Donnel, sysadmin for America Online [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
