On 09/26/2017 06:09 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com
<mailto:jlhouc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello, thanks for the reply.
I have thought about recursive and unfortunately it is not in my
opinion an adequate or equivalent substitute. It may be
inoffensive, but it is not accurate in conveying those properties
or characteristics of the GPL. Something that is recursive
generally makes repeated calls to itself. It is neatly contained
and does not propagate outside of itself. Calling a recursive
method does not make the call chain all the way up to main
recursive. The recursive method does its recursion and generally
returns its result back to the caller, ending the recursion. The
only thing the caller receives is the results, not the recursion.
There are many positive cultural references to something viral or
infect(ious). For something to go viral, depends on what that
something is. She has an infectious smile, or laugh. Even in
biology where we get the term viral. It is not absolutely or
always negative. There are things that scientist attempt to use
viral characteristics to do good things. Context is everything.
There are no words a GPL proponent could provide which adequately
or otherwise describe the viral characteristic of the GPL that
would be considered positive by a GPL opponent.
Back to context.
To a GPL proponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a
positive and good thing. It is the primary reason to choose and
use the GPL.
To the GPL opponent, the viral nature of the GPL is considered a
negative and bad thing. It is the primary reason to oppose and to
avoid using the GPL.
Two side both viewing the same exact thing and understanding it
very differently. One positive, one negative. There is no positive
spin for this aspect of the GPL for someone wishing to avoid that
aspect. No matter what words are chosen.
For the MIT/BSD person we don't necessarily care if you wish to
license your software under the GPL. What we care is that your
software is expressly and explicitly trying to override our
choices and compel us to become GPL. That is what we don't like.
The fact that GPL software is GPL software in perpetuity is okay.
Just leave us alone. But we know that is not how the GPL works.
A perspective occurred to me this morning. The original author of
GPL software is not bound by the GPL.
I think this thread has run its course for now, but just a quick
clarification here. The above is only true up until they accept the
first contribution from another party - so its not a good argument.
cheers -ben .
I agree that it has run its course. However, the original author still
can do whatever they want with the code they wrote. They have copyright.
But they can not undo what has been released. They cannot use any other
contributors code without that code also affecting any of the other code
they may have added to or modifications of the original. But the initial
offering and any additions and modifications they do which does not
other contributors GPLd code is still under their complete control to do
as they wish. This is the only way anybody would be able to do dual
licensing. As is the case in something like QT or other such projects.
But anything they write which is without contributions is still totally
within their control to do so as they please. And as I said, there are
many projects who started out as GPL and switched to MIT. Yes, someone
could still take what was released as GPL and keep it going. But it
would then be competing with the MIT version. Nim and PicoLisp are two
such projects that started as GPL and moved to MIT.
They could even do so with contributed code if the contributors signed
agreements assigning copyrights to the original author.
Jimmie
