"renoX" <ren...@free.fr> wrote in message news:j86eo6$6i8$1...@digitalmars.com... >> > 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.
That's silly. You're trying to defend GPL on the basis of an analogy not being identical to the thing it is being likened to. IOW, you're trying to play "analogy warfare" instead of "getting the message". One can on to say, well the person who went to the doctor's office didn't expect to come back with <some disease> because the doctor didn't wash his hands between patients. Yada, yada... > 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". That's just your opinion.
