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

Mahesh T. Pai wrote:

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.

I have changed it. It now reads "This article is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". The Linux India Wiki does not specify the copyright of the articles published on it. Hence I put it in. You are correct, I should not have used the earlier notice.

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'.

This suggestion is really good. I should have thought about it. However, I will not be able to put in the changes today as I am suffering from a terrible backache (from bad sitting posture I guess :-( ).

Thanks for the suggestions

Regards