"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Chante" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> >> "Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> >>> LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist >>> anything. It's >>> going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL, >>> because it's >>> viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih. >> >> Not just everyTHING, but also "infects" everyONE who "comes in contact >> with it". Of course one can say the same for programmers who have >> worked for a software company. The risk of having foreign code that is >> patented or viral creeping into a pristine codebase isn't worth the >> risk (IMO) of hiring "tainted" programmers. > > Meh, thanks to the corrupt USPTO, all code is covered by one patent or > another...programmer taint or not. >
While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government are on one side, humanity on the other. >> Young programmers/programmer-wannabes need to consider this before >> signing-on to get that paycheck. Once "tainted", they most likely will >> never be able to become "untainted" (there are cures, but they are >> very unlikely to be enacted). >> > > >
