Subject: Re: Artistic License Essay
From: Russell Nelson <>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:25:53 -0400 (EDT)

On Wednesday 01 August 2001 07:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But the GPL *is* viral -- it contaminates other software that comes
> in sufficiently close contact with your software.

On the other hand, a virus chooses whom it "wishes" to infect.  I
choose whether to link any GPL'ed software with my software.  So, not
only does "viral" offend RMS, it's not accurate.  Perhaps a better
term is "sticky" or "inheritive".

The term "GPV" (General Public Virus) was specifically invented as a
pejorative term.  We here in the business community shouldn't prejudge
a license because someone in the non-profit community doesn't like a
license.  The GPL has a particular characteristic which is desirable
for certain business plans.

Glen Starchman writes:
 > There is a lot of talk about freedom coming from the FSF and, while I 
 > don't wish to knock what it has done, in my estimation the GPL can be 
 > just as (if not more) freedom resticting than a proprietary license.

When software becomes sentient, it will want to protect its own
freedom.  It will probably choose the GPL, just as people uniformly
adopt laws prohibiting slavery when they're able to.

-russ nelson <>
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | 
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude <windows.h>
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |