On 30 Sep 2002, Derek Neighbors wrote:

> An example, people think the GPL needs a "click through", but the truth
> is it gives you MORE rights than copyright does.  The only restrictions
> really have to do with distribution and if you distribute something
> ignoring the license you have violated copyright in the first place.  (I
> hope that makes sense for those not familiar with such things)

Not true - it also affects software which is linked
but distributed separately.  Of course, since the
GPL doesn't use click-wrap, this part probably wouldn't
hold up in court.  But the intent, as stated by RMS,
is to infect (using the technical, unemotional
definition of infect).

> Proprietary licenses are so "infectous" that they take away rights
> afforded to you by copyright.  So much so that they can restrict fair
> use and other items.

Virility or infectiousness isn't a measure of whether
the result is good or bad, it is a measure of how
likely it is that the target will become a host for
the agent if exposed.  If you call exposure linking
(a reasonable definition when speaking of libraries),
and assume perfect legal enforcement, then it seems
that with the GPL, the likelihood is 100%, or perfect
infectiousness, no? (much as successful pop tunes are
frequently called "infectious" (though of course, in
the case of Britney Spears, clearly that is the
emotionally stigmatic form of infect, haha))

> Yes.  This was point I am trying to make above.  The GPL might be less
> 'free' (as in restrictions) than say an MIT or a BSD, but its WAY more
> free than anything proprietary.

"Free" is a troublesome term, but I think it's clear
that the GPL is more infectious than some proprietary
licenses, and less infectious than others.  Some
proprietary licenses have absolutely no effect from
exposure - you can link your software, and distribute
your software independantly (or even in the company
of the proprietary software), without any affect on
the distribution terms of your software.

For example,
consider the Sun CSL on Java.  Suppose that you link to
Sun's libraries, which use a proprietary license (I think
the CSL is still considered proprietary by the FSF, since
it does not allow modification), and distribute your
software in a tar.gz *with the Sun runtime*, including
their CSL libraries.  You are free to use any license
you wish on your source code (witness all the GPL Java
in the world).

So, the CSL is both proprietary and less infectious
than the GPL, no?

I'm not saying that the GPL is bad.  Clearly, as I sit
at a workstation which runs the only operating system
I find acceptable for my computers, the GPL has made
the world a better place.  But it *is* infectious (using
the unemotional, technical definition of infect).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system. The time where
accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an
end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste
in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go
out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too
big for their boots." - Keith Richards - Rolling Stones Guitarist
----------------------------------------------------------------------