The obvious answer is simply to refer to GPL. It isn't necessary to propagate a derogatory point of view by finding another word for an incorrect idea. Try re-reading my previous words without trying to hold on to a flawed interpretation.
On June 2, 2020 5:33:56 PM PDT, Avraham Adler <avraham.ad...@gmail.com> wrote: >Apologies; my intent was not to disparage, but that is the term is used >in >the industry and in venues which discuss FLOSS because it reflects that >the >addition of one component with that kind of copyleft license causes the >entire project to need that particular copyleft license. If there is a >term >which reflects that mechanism from a discipline other than biology, >please let me know. > >Thanks, > >Avi > >On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:25 PM Jeff Newmiller ><jdnew...@dcn.davis.ca.us> >wrote: > >> "Viral" is has connotations that reflect the biases of the person >using >> the term. A less loaded perspective is that some people don't want >you to >> take their contributions out of circulation by using it as the >foundation >> of your proprietary work. If you want to close it up, build from >scratch or >> find some other code that isn't GPL. >> >> Describing it as "viral" makes it sound as if they were trying to >steal >> something you did instead of protecting their code from being stolen. >> Please refrain from being inflammatory. >> >> On June 2, 2020 4:49:25 PM PDT, Avraham Adler ><avraham.ad...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >IANAL, but the GPL family of licenses is VIRAL copy left so it >infects >> >anything it touched, which is why many shy away and prefer something >> >like >> >the Mozilla Public License 2 (MPL) as a compromise between viral >> >copyleft >> >and the permissive MIT/ISC/BSD2. >> > >> >Avi >> > >> >On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM R. Mark Sharp <rmsh...@me.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Spencer, >> >> >> >> I apologize for my obvious (in hindsight) error in bringing up the >> >topic. >> >> I will bring up one example, because of your request. Google has >> >listed >> >> GPL-1, 2, and 3 as one of several licenses that are restricted and >> >cannot >> >> be used by a Google product delivered to outside customers. This >> >include >> >> downloadable client software and software such as insdie the >Google >> >Search >> >> Appliance. This includes having scripts that load packages >> >dynamically as >> >> with “library()” and “require()”. Please see >> >> https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted for >> >their >> >> wording. >> >> >> >> I am not defending their position and disagree with it. However, >it >> >is >> >> their position based on what I think is a conservative or overly >> >cautious >> >> legal interpretation. I am not a lawyer, however, so my opinions >are >> >of no >> >> import. >> >> >> >> Mark >> >> R. Mark Sharp, Ph.D. >> >> Data Scientist and Biomedical Statistical Consu >> ><https://www.google.com/maps/search/a+Scientist+and+Biomedical+Statistical+Consu?entry=gmail&source=g> >> ltant >> >> 7526 Meadow Green St. >> >> San Antonio, TX 78251 >> >> mobile: 210-218-2868 >> >> rmsh...@me.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Spencer Graves < >> >> spencer.gra...@effectivedefense.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Can Dr. Sharp kindly provide a credible reference, >discussing >> >the >> >> alleged ambiguities in GPL-2 and GPL-3 that convince some >companies >> >to >> >> avoid them? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I like Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikipedia, where >> >almost >> >> anyone can change almost anything, and what stays tends to be >written >> >from >> >> a neutral point of view, citing credible sources. I get several >> >emails a >> >> day notifying me of changes in articles I'm "watching". FUD, >> >vandalism, >> >> etc., are generally reverted fairly quickly or moved to the "Talk" >> >page >> >> associated with each article, where the world is invited to >provide >> >> credible source(s). >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Spencer Graves >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 2020-06-02 10:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >> >> >> On 2 June 2020 at 10:06, R. Mark Sharp wrote: >> >> >> | The GPL-2 and GPL-3 licenses are apparently sufficiently >> >ambiguous in >> >> the legal community that some companies avoid them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wittgenstein: 'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must >> >remain >> >> silent' >> >> >> >> >> >> This is a mailing list of the R project. R is a GNU Project. R >is >> >> licensed >> >> >> under the GPL, version two or later. That has not stopped large >> >> corporations >> >> >> from using R, adopting R, or starting or acquiring R related >> >businesses. >> >> >> >> >> >> If you have a strong urge to spread FUD about the GPL and R, >could >> >you >> >> have the >> >> >> modicum of etiquette to not do it on a mailing list of the R >> >Project? >> >> >> >> >> >> Dirk >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > ______________________________________________ >> >> > R-package-devel@r-project.org >> ><mailto:R-package-devel@r-project.org> >> >> mailing list >> >> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel < >> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel> >> >> >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> >> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. >> -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel