[Fsf-friends] GPL-Virus Or Vaccine
Mahesh T. Pai
paivakil@vsnl.net
Mon Jun 7 13:27:48 IST 2004
Raj Shekhar said on Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 09:05:36AM +0530,:
> I have put an article on the Linux India Wiki called GPL-Virus Or
> Vaccine .
> http://lug-bhopal.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/GPL-VirusOrVaccine
Raj, first things first.
The license at the bottom does not allow modification - something not
in tune with spirit of the wiki. Unless you change that license into
something like the GNU FDL, _I_ am not going to edit the page. (Not
that I am against verbatim licenses, I do use them; my point is only
that verbatim licenses are inappropriate for wiki pages.
Second, while you have all the good intentions in doing this, I trust
that you are aware of how search engines index pages. IMHO, it is not
a good ting to have words like GNU and GPL appear in the context of
`virus'. People searching for information on things like hepatitis
might end up on this page.
A good way of phrasing this would to say ``Why GPL'', and add a sub
section titled `Is the GPL viral'? And a good way of going about it is
to start with defining the term `viral'. A good dictionary will give
you the real meaning of the term GPL.
Here is an example:-
<quote>
>From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:
virus
n 1: (virology) ultramicroscopic infectious agent that replicates
itself only within cells of living hosts; many are
pathogenic; a piece of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) wrapped
in a thin coat of protein
2: a harmful or corrupting agency; "bigotry is a virus that
must not be allowed to spread"; "the virus of jealousy is
latent in everyone"
3: a software program capable of reproducing itself and usually
capable of causing great harm to files or other programs
on the same computer; "a true virus cannot spread to
another computer without human assistance" [syn: {computer
virus}]
</unquote>
Now, the gpl does not replicate itself. Nor is it pathogenic. It
certainly does not corrupt anything.
The long and short of the GNU GPL is this:- it ensures that you do not
take away people's freedoms by distributing modified software written
by others.
So, ALL the following should apply at the same time:-
1. You should be dealing with software written by others.
2. You should have modified
or
3. You should be distributing it.
The GNU (L)GPL does not apply to software written by, and therefore,
owned by you. I think it is only fair that the copyright holder
prescribes the terms under which his software is used. Is it not?
That is a feature of the copyright law, not of GPL.
The term `viral' as applied to the GNU GPL is a lot like use of terms
`intellectual property' and `piracy'. People want to create fear,
confusion and doubt by spreading loosely defined, inaccurate, and
often, blatantly wrong terminology.
HTH
More information about the Fsf-friends
mailing list