[ba-unrev-talk] viral licenses
Jack Park wrote:
> What I say here is just liable to bring a response from the creator of
> the GPL license; it has in the past and I don't see why it won't again.
>
> The problem (NOTE: the use of the word *problem* requires some
> qualification: a subjective connotation is placed on its use: that there
> is a *problem* at all is purely one based on personal belief systems
> involved -- religious, though they may be, at times), with the use of
> GPL is that it is known to be a viral license. (01)
Greg Lehey writes in an article published at: (02)
http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200202/dadvocate.html (03)
"People discuss a number of differences between BSD and Linux. In my
mind, one of the biggest non-issues is the question of license. The BSD
license has fewer restrictions than the GNU General Public License under
which Linux is released: the GPL requires that any derivative works also
be placed under the GPL. Some people consider this ``viral'' effect to
be the work of the devil, and part of rms' plan to take over the world.
It's true that it causes certain ethical problems when using GPL code in
BSD, but there are usually ways to solve them, assuming good faith on
both sides." (04)
- Teemu (05)