> > First, it isn't new: it's just the "GPL is viral" classic FUD, > Not that I care about anything GPL (rejected it long ago),
Your choice. > but how is calling GPL'd code "viral" not appropriate when just placing uninfected code next to it, infects it? Because *someone* joined the GPL code and the other code, so it is a *voluntary act* whereas being infected by a biological virus is usually something totally involuntary. I said so already in my post you're replying.. Maybe you should read the whole post before replying. > On another note: Isn't the goal of GPL to offer "crap code" with the > intent-of/attempt-at getting good (valuable/saleable/researched/developd) code? Your flamebait/assertions is not supported by facts: the Linux kernel and other software are definitely not "crap code".
