On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Michael Knee wrote:

> The one on software licenses didn't sound too appealing, but it turned out
> to be VERY worthwhile.  The difference between the different licenses is
> important.  It was worth the whole presentation just to learn that M$
> considers the GPL "infectious".

I missed Michelle's lecture, but the GPL is
intended to provide Free Software developers
with an advantage that is unavailable to
proprietary software developers:

"Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the
ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage
over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while
proprietary developers cannot use it.

"...Releasing [Readline] under the GPL and limiting its use to free
programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application
program is free software today specifically because that was necessary
for using Readline."

 - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

My understanding from this is that while it may
not be infectious to those who choose not to
link to GPL software, it *is* intended to be
infectious to those who do chose to link to
GPL software.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system. The time where
accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an
end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste
in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go
out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too
big for their boots." - Keith Richards - Rolling Stones Guitarist
----------------------------------------------------------------------