# My brief and torrid affair with Ruby **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [8 July 2003 23:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757 "2003-07-08T23:57:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jim\_Cain1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b3f665/32.png) [@Jim\_Cain1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Cain1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 02:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/21 "2003-07-09T02:09:07Z")
Stephyn Butcher wrote: > They don’t call GPL a legal virus for nothing: The problem with the term _virus_ is that it implies malevolence. A virus imposes itself on its victim without consent. That is not the spirit of the GPL. The GPL is attached to something that is given away freely. Likewise, anyone is free to use it, or to choose some other solution. If I decide to give you something for free, it is not unreasonable to ask that you, if you decide to accept and use it, also make any derived works available with the same freedoms from which you benefitted. You are, of course, free to decline my offer. That is hardly a virus. ---
**Author:** ![Harry\_Ohlsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e57/32.png) [@Harry\_Ohlsen1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Harry_Ohlsen1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 05:30 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/22 "2003-07-09T05:30:44Z")
james\_b wrote: > Now, it might seem disingenuous to be the provider of both the core, > non-GPL app, and one or more GPL’ed helper library classes, Of course, you could just tell the user that there’s an open source library that might profitably be used _with_ your product, which can be downloaded from your web site, where you generously provide a distribution point for … a very select subset of 🙂 … available open source libraries. Yes, shockingly devious and I certainly don’t recommend that approach !! ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 18:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/23 "2003-07-09T18:57:29Z")
Ray, I’m glad you had a positive experience. You won’t get a lot of flames in this list. Plus, your email was very respectful. There was nothing to flame you about. > This happens with your permission because you decide to use the GPL > component in the first place. Therefore, there are no ‘surprises’ > here. It is pretty clear by using a GPL (not LGPL) component you are > agreeing to GPL the rest of your code as well. Not quite. Using a GPL component does not imply an agreement to GPL your code. This is a common misconception. Rather, if you don’t GPL your code you are in violation of the license. You can correct that violation either by GPL’ing your code, or by removing the GPL component. The GPL is totally safe. > In my opinion, one way to ensure the growing popularity of Ruby is to > promote the tradition of releasing Ruby modules under licenses > friendly to commercial and proprietary use. Furthermore, if we release everything under Ruby’s license it’ll reduce confusion. That’s very important. * * * Daniel Carrera | OpenPGP fingerprint: Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88 UMD (301) 405-5137 | [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html) > **···** > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 08:52:34PM +0900, Ray Cote wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_O\_Dell2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71e660/32.png) [@Sean\_O\_Dell2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Sean_O_Dell2)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 20:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/24 "2003-07-09T20:14:31Z")
I don’t believe the GPL is specific about the library sharing the same memory space as the linking application; for example, the library may be linked through a TCP/IP pipe where the application is running on a different machine than the library is. If the application links intimately with the GPL library, the application must also be GPL unless the library is distributed as a normal part of a development environment or operating system. ``` Sean O'Dell ``` “Jim Cain” [list@jimcain.us](mailto:list@jimcain.us) wrote in message [news:3F0B6C78.6030301@jimcain.us](mailto:news:3F0B6C78.6030301@jimcain.us)… > Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > Hi Daniel: > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > > > I believe these two items from the GPL FAQ cover the question: > > > [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL) > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > ## If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library > > > > > > ## You have a GPL’ed program that I’d like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program? Yes. > > > > Well, it’s not that simple. Ruby modules are not linked into your > > program the way > > a binary library would be. On the other hand, they are not exactly > > external > > programs either. So it’s not quite clear there. > > > > Judging from the first question, I am now leaning towards saying that > > yes, it is a > > derivative work, on the basis that (I think) a “require” actually does > > “stick in” > > the module code into your program, hence making it a derivative. > > Perhaps someone > > could correct or confirm this. > > > > So, yes, it seems that you are right on that. > > > > > There are a variety of ways of ‘hiding’ code. One of the projects > > > we’re currently designing consists of a sealed box delivered to the > > > user, a sort of ‘payment appliance’ if you will. The end user not > > > only has no access to the code on the machine, they have no need for > > > access. However, under the GPL, I would be legally bound to > > > distribute source code for the program on that machine. > > > > Well… you’d be legally bound to provide it upon request. I apologize > > if this is > > a dumb question, but if the user has no use for the source anyways, > > what’s the > > problem with the GPL? > > > > The user doesn’t need the source. You don’t have to provide the source > > unless > > they want it. What’s the problem? > > > > > If I have a choice of working in an environment where the licenses > > > promote commercial use or working in an environment where I need to > > > check and perhaps get permission for special licenses, I’m going to > > > take the path of least resistance. > > > > Well… don’t mixup “commercial” and “propietary”. I still don’t > > understand why > > the GPL would inhibit you from selling your commercial product. I’m > > sure that > > there’s something obvious I’m not seeing. Perhaps you can clarify the > > problem? > **···** > > > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:35:47AM +0900, Ray Cote wrote: > > > > It’s my understanding that the GPL requires anything that links to a > > GPL-licensed library to have a GPL license as well. Of course in the > > case of shared libraries, the executable and library are in separate > > files. But when the thing is actually being executed, the object code > > all occupies memory at the same time, if code in the library is being > > used. According to the GPL, this is a derived work based on the GPLed > > library, and so the GPL applies to the executable _in memory_. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_Schwartz6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@Eric\_Schwartz6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Eric_Schwartz6)\ **Post date:** [10 July 2003 00:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/25 "2003-07-10T00:37:36Z")
Paul Prescod [paul@prescod.net](mailto:paul@prescod.net) writes: > The discussion was about the use of GPLed components. My point was that > if you use those components you can no longer license it under any terms > you care to and that in turn means that it is not really practical to > “sell” it in the sense of selling the bits. Once you allow > redistribution, someone else can redistribute your code at a price much > lower than your own. And my point is that they must do so under the terms of the GPL. You have to offer your code under the GPL as well-- which seem fair to me, since you’re piggybacking on the work of others who’ve released their code publicly. But if you want to use non-GPL components, perhaps as an option, then you can _also_ license your code under any onerous, nasty, proprietary license you choose. If a customer wants to use code that forces them to release their code as GPL, they can buy from anyone (or just download), but if they don’t, they have to come to you. Many media projects do this successfully-- I think Ogg Vorbis is dual-licensable. -=Eric > **···** > > – > Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million > typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. > – Blair Houghton. ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 02:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/26 "2003-07-09T02:14:06Z")
Exactly. The GPL does not _impose_ anything. It sets a condition upon the use a pice of software. You have two choices: comply with the conditions, or don’t use it. There is nothing viral about that. * * * Daniel Carrera | OpenPGP fingerprint: Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88 UMD (301) 405-5137 | [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html) > **···** > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:09:07AM +0900, Jim Cain wrote: > > > Stephyn Butcher wrote: > > > > > They don’t call GPL a legal virus for nothing: > > > > The problem with the term _virus_ is that it implies malevolence. A > > virus imposes itself on its victim without consent. That is not the > > spirit of the GPL. The GPL is attached to something that is given away > > freely. Likewise, anyone is free to use it, or to choose some other > > solution. > > > > If I decide to give you something for free, it is not unreasonable to > > ask that you, if you decide to accept and use it, also make any derived > > works available with the same freedoms from which you benefitted. > > > > You are, of course, free to decline my offer. That is hardly a virus. ---
**Author:** ![james9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@james9](https://rubytalk.org/u/james9)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 16:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/27 "2003-07-09T16:10:30Z")
Harry Ohlsen wrote: > james\_b wrote: > > > Now, it might seem disingenuous to be the provider of both the core, > > non-GPL app, and one or more GPL’ed helper library classes, > > Of course, you could just tell the user that there’s an open source > library that might profitably be used _with_ your product, which can be > downloaded from your web site, where you generously provide a > distribution point for … a very select subset of 🙂 … available > open source libraries. > > Yes, shockingly devious and I certainly don’t recommend that approach !! Why not? I hope this topic isn’t drifting too far OT, though it strikes me as a critical area of discussion (but by no means a strictly-Ruby subject). So, why not write your applications as a set of loosely-coupled objects or services (probably not a bad idea anyway), with each part licensed in accordance with your needs and the reqirements of any GPL’ed code? It’s mostly where I’m headed with my own code (at least for the larger projects), and largely because I want the most flexibility in determining licensing. I see nothing devious about it. BTW, there is a ruby garden wiki page on license issues ([http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?LicenseIssues](http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?LicenseIssues)) but it appears to be focsed on some specific set of code (maybe the code examples on the Wiki iteslf?). The page was last edited on June 24, 2001. Perhaps we can co-opt this page for a broader discussion of the topic and collect references to more definitive information on the varous licensing options. James ---
**Author:** ![gabriele\_renzi4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e36b37/32.png) [@gabriele\_renzi4](https://rubytalk.org/u/gabriele_renzi4)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 19:53 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/28 "2003-07-09T19:53:55Z")
well, there are groups where just writing G,P and L in the same line would call raving maniacs from most of usenet. But as usual people on comp.lang.ruby/ruby-talk is kind and quiet. I suppose this is related to the use of a programming language that saves you headaches 🙂 > **···** > > il Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:57:29 +0900, Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) ha scritto:: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Ray, > > > > I’m glad you had a positive experience. You won’t get a lot of flames in > > this list. Plus, your email was very respectful. There was nothing to > > flame you about. ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler2)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 21:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/29 "2003-07-09T21:18:48Z")
The FSF isn’t really the arbiter of this. Their claim that dynamic linking creates a derivative work has not been resolved in any court of law or by legislation (I’m not sure that it’s been shown for static linking, either, but that’s much more likely to be shown as derivative work creating). Further, the GPL itself applies to _distribution_, not to _execution._ So if I distribute an application (A) that requires library (L), but do not distribute the library (L), then I am technically not in violation of the GPL, because the putative derivative work (A+L) exists only in memory and is not distributed. Note that GPL2 says nothing about remote access (e.g., GPLed programs that are accessed via the web or via SOAP or some other mechanism); GPL3 is likely to say something about this, although it will force me to immediately change any software that I own to “GPL2”, not “GPL2 or later”. If the GPL3 is changed the way that the Affero licence has been changed, then it truly is viral and anticommercial. - -austin * * * austin ziegler \* austin@halostatue.ca \* Toronto, ON, Canada software designer \* pragmatic programmer \* 2003.07.09 \* 16:48:47 > **···** > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:14:31 +0900, Sean O’Dell wrote: > > > I don’t believe the GPL is specific about the library sharing the > > same memory space as the linking application; for example, the > > library may be linked through a TCP/IP pipe where the application > > is running on a different machine than the library is. If the > > application links intimately with the GPL library, the application > > must also be GPL unless the library is distributed as a normal > > part of a development environment or operating system. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_Prescod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Paul\_Prescod](https://rubytalk.org/u/Paul_Prescod)\ **Post date:** [11 July 2003 09:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/30 "2003-07-11T09:28:44Z")
Eric Schwartz wrote: > Paul Prescod [paul@prescod.net](mailto:paul@prescod.net) writes: > > > The discussion was about the use of GPLed components. My point was that > > if you use those components you can no longer license it under any terms > > you care to and that in turn means that it is not really practical to > > “sell” it in the sense of selling the bits. Once you allow > > redistribution, someone else can redistribute your code at a price much > > lower than your own. > > And my point is that they must do so under the terms of the GPL. You > have to offer your code under the GPL as well-- which seem fair to me, > since you’re piggybacking on the work of others who’ve released their > code publicly. We are in violent agreement. > … But if you want to use non-GPL components, perhaps as > an option, then you can _also_ license your code under any onerous, > nasty, proprietary license you choose. How can you do so if your code uses a GPL component (which was the context of the original question)? Once you embed the GPL code, you lose the right to add an onerous, proprietary license. > Many media projects do this successfully-- I think Ogg Vorbis is > dual-licensable. Yes, this business model works if a) you do not depened on any GPLed components and b) you expect your customers to embed the software in some larger work which they will want to distribute under a non-GPL license. This would rarely be the case for a word processor, for example. But the original thread was about a). The poster was afraid of using GPLed code because they didn’t want to have to GPL their own code. “”“Specifically, I just happened to look at the source code in DBI.rb and Oracle.rb and was astonished to discover that these modules are GPL. Then I quickly found trace.rb, and proxy.rb were GPL as well.”“” I use Perl and Python to build commercial products for my own company and for clients. Unfortunately, until Ruby provides a non-GPL alternative I need to go back to Perl or Python.“”" Licensing issues tend to become more and more severe as a language ages and people try to use it for more mission-critical and/or commercial tasks. Paul Prescod ---
**Author:** ![Rasputin1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/439d5e/32.png) [@Rasputin1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rasputin1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 10:05 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/31 "2003-07-09T10:05:49Z")
- Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) [0714 03:14]: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Stephyn Butcher wrote: > > > > > They don’t call GPL a legal virus for nothing: > > > > The problem with the term _virus_ is that it implies malevolence. A > > virus imposes itself on its victim without consent. That is not the > > spirit of the GPL. The GPL is attached to something that is given away > > freely. Likewise, anyone is free to use it, or to choose some other > > solution. > > > > If I decide to give you something for free, it is not unreasonable to > > ask that you, if you decide to accept and use it, also make any derived > > works available with the same freedoms from which you benefitted. > > > > You are, of course, free to decline my offer. That is hardly a virus. > > Exactly. The GPL does not _impose_ anything. It sets a condition upon the use a > pice of software. You have two choices: comply with the conditions, or don’t use > it. There is nothing viral about that. The term ‘viral’ refers to the fact that if you want to use GPLed code, your code must become GPL. So it spreads. Unlike more flexible licenses, such as the BSD or Apache licenses, which don’t restrict you in the same way. I presume that’s why the LGPL exists? > **···** > > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:09:07AM +0900, Jim Cain wrote: > > – > > You’ve been leading a dog’s life. Stay off the furniture. > > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns ---
**Author:** ![Jason\_Creighton3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jason\_Creighton3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jason_Creighton3)\ **Post date:** [11 July 2003 05:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/32 "2003-07-11T05:49:56Z")
Hmmmm… Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and “any later version”, YOU HAVE THE OPTION [emphasis mine] of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. So couldn’t you basically ignore GPL3? Jason Creighton > **···** > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:18:48 +0900 Austin Ziegler [austin@halostatue.ca](mailto:austin@halostatue.ca) wrote: > > > Note that GPL2 says nothing about remote access (e.g., GPLed > > programs that are accessed via the web or via SOAP or some other > > mechanism); GPL3 is likely to say something about this, although it > > will force me to immediately change any software that I own to > > “GPL2”, not “GPL2 or later”. If the GPL3 is changed the way that the > > Affero licence has been changed, then it truly is viral and > > anticommercial. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_Schwartz6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@Eric\_Schwartz6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Eric_Schwartz6)\ **Post date:** [11 July 2003 17:15 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/33 "2003-07-11T17:15:56Z")
Paul Prescod [paul@prescod.net](mailto:paul@prescod.net) writes: > Eric Schwartz wrote: > > > … But if you want to use non-GPL components, perhaps as > > an option, then you can _also_ license your code under any onerous, > > nasty, proprietary license you choose. > > How can you do so if your code uses a GPL component (which was the > context of the original question)? Once you embed the GPL code, you lose > the right to add an onerous, proprietary license. You can replace the GPL component with a non-GPL component, or re-license the GPL component under another license. So you see, you don’t lose the right to add an onerous proprietary license, it’s just harder to do so than it otherwise might be. -=Eric > **···** > > – > Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million > typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. > – Blair Houghton. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Cain1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b3f665/32.png) [@Jim\_Cain1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Cain1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 14:39 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/34 "2003-07-09T14:39:49Z")
Rasputin wrote: > - Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) [0714 03:14]: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > Stephyn Butcher wrote: > > > > > > > They don’t call GPL a legal virus for nothing: > > > > > > The problem with the term _virus_ is that it implies malevolence. A > > > virus imposes itself on its victim without consent. That is not the > > > spirit of the GPL. The GPL is attached to something that is given away > > > freely. Likewise, anyone is free to use it, or to choose some other > > > solution. > > > > > > If I decide to give you something for free, it is not unreasonable to > > > ask that you, if you decide to accept and use it, also make any derived > > > works available with the same freedoms from which you benefitted. > > > > > > You are, of course, free to decline my offer. That is hardly a virus. > > > > Exactly. The GPL does not _impose_ anything. It sets a condition upon the use a > > pice of software. You have two choices: comply with the conditions, or don’t use > > it. There is nothing viral about that. > > The term ‘viral’ refers to the fact that if you want to use GPLed code, your code > must become GPL. So it spreads. They say good news travels fast, but good news is not a virus. > **···** > > > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:09:07AM +0900, Jim Cain wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler2)\ **Post date:** [11 July 2003 14:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/35 "2003-07-11T14:56:57Z")
_I_ could. However, remember that the licence on my work doesn’t apply to me – I’m the copyright holder. The licence applies to those whom I give it to. If I have (unlikely) chosen to GPL something, I don’t want to give anyone else the power to say “you’re exposing this software over a network; I therefore have a right to the source code.” That’s what the Affero PL does and what a proposed GPL3 does. It changes the GPL from primarily a programmer’s licence to a use licence as well. -austin > **···** > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:49:56 +0900, Jason Creighton wrote: > > > Austin Ziegler [austin@halostatue.ca](mailto:austin@halostatue.ca) wrote: > > > > > Note that GPL2 says nothing about remote access (e.g., GPLed > > > programs that are accessed via the web or via SOAP or some other > > > mechanism); GPL3 is likely to say something about this, although it > > > will force me to immediately change any software that I own to > > > “GPL2”, not “GPL2 or later”. If the GPL3 is changed the way that > > > the Affero licence has been changed, then it truly is viral and > > > anticommercial. > > > Hmmmm… > > > > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", YOU HAVE THE OPTION [emphasis mine] of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. > > > > So couldn’t you basically ignore GPL3? > > – > austin ziegler \* austin@halostatue.ca \* Toronto, ON, Canada > software designer \* pragmatic programmer \* 2003.07.11 > \* 10:53:53 ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Campbell1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Michael\_Campbell1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michael_Campbell1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 15:02 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/36 "2003-07-09T15:02:01Z")
> > > > The problem with the term _virus_ is that it implies malevolence. To you, maybe. > > The term ‘viral’ refers to the fact that if you want to use > > GPLed code, your code must become GPL. So it spreads. > > They say good news travels fast, but good news is not a virus. They also say laughter can be infectious, but laughter is not malevolent. Pithy sayings don’t prove much and are hardly universal. I understood the OPs meaning when he said the GPL was viral in nature. Did some HONESTLY not, or are they picking semantic nits? ---
**Author:** ![Rasputin1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/439d5e/32.png) [@Rasputin1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rasputin1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 16:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/37 "2003-07-09T16:29:05Z")
- Jim Cain [list@jimcain.us](mailto:list@jimcain.us) [0740 15:40]: > Rasputin wrote: > > > - Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) [0714 03:14]: > > > > You are, of course, free to decline my offer. That is hardly a virus. > > > > > > Exactly. The GPL does not _impose_ anything. It sets a condition upon > > > the use a pice of software. You have two choices: comply with the > > > conditions, or don’t use it. There is nothing viral about that. > > The term ‘viral’ refers to the fact that if you want to use GPLed code, > > your code must become GPL. So it spreads. > They say good news travels fast, but good news is not a virus. Yeah, but if I hear good news, I can _choose_ to pass it on. I’m not a lawyer, so I prefer BSD, because it’s truly free. It has no strings other than ‘give credit where it’s due’. GPLs ‘might/might not be free in your situation’ is too much hassle. If I spend the effort to write code, I think _I_ should be allowed to choose what to do with it, rather than leave that choice to the author of a library I used. That’s not free in my book. Sorry if that’s seen as a troll, let’s knock this on the head now. > **···** > > – > Egotism is the anesthetic given by a kindly nature to relieve the pain > of being a damned fool. > – Bellamy Brooks > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Cain1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b3f665/32.png) [@Jim\_Cain1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Cain1)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 17:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/38 "2003-07-09T17:09:05Z")
Rasputin wrote: > - Jim Cain [list@jimcain.us](mailto:list@jimcain.us) [0740 15:40]: > > > Rasputin wrote: > > > > > - Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) [0714 03:14]: > > > > > > You are, of course, free to decline my offer. That is hardly a virus. > > > > > > > > Exactly. The GPL does not _impose_ anything. It sets a condition upon > > > > the use a pice of software. You have two choices: comply with the > > > > conditions, or don’t use it. There is nothing viral about that. > > > > The term ‘viral’ refers to the fact that if you want to use GPLed code, > > > your code must become GPL. So it spreads. > > > They say good news travels fast, but good news is not a virus. > > Yeah, but if I hear good news, I can _choose_ to pass it on. Right, and if you come across a GPLed library, you can _choose_ whether to use it. ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 18:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/39 "2003-07-09T18:49:02Z")
This is exactly what people get wrong about the GPL!!! The GPL does NOT inhibit your ability to choose what to do with your work!! The GPL does NOT change the license of your work. It is simply not possible for copyright law to do that, and the GPL doesn’t try to. The GPL will NOT alter the license of your work. You are given a library and you are allowed to use it under certain conditions. You have a choice. Either comply, or don’t use it. If you “mistakely” break the license (e.g. by including some of it’s code into your programs) your work does not suddenly change license. It’s still yours and you choose what to do with it. Rather, you are in violation of the GPL license, and if you don’t like the GPL terms you should remove the relevant code. * * * Daniel Carrera | OpenPGP fingerprint: Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88 UMD (301) 405-5137 | [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html) > **···** > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 01:29:05AM +0900, Rasputin wrote: > > > If I spend the effort to write code, I think _I_ should be allowed to > > choose what to do with it, rather than leave that choice to the author > > of a library I used. That’s not free in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [9 July 2003 18:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757/40 "2003-07-09T18:50:54Z")
I’m not sure what you mean by your question. I honestly interpret malevolence in the term “viral”. And I honestly think that the term viral is very incorrect (even if you remove the malevolence bit). I honestly believe that the GPL does not share any resemblance to a virus. Does any of this answer your question? Or did I misinterpret it? * * * Daniel Carrera | OpenPGP fingerprint: Graduate TA, Math Dept | 6643 8C8B 3522 66CB D16C D779 2FDD 7DAC 9AF7 7A88 UMD (301) 405-5137 | [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/pgp.html) > **···** > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:02:01AM +0900, Michael Campbell wrote: > > > Pithy sayings don’t prove much and are hardly universal. I understood the > > OPs meaning when he said the GPL was viral in nature. Did some HONESTLY > > not, or are they picking semantic nits? [Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757.md?page=1) [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/my-brief-and-torrid-affair-with-ruby/6757.md?page=3)