Microsoft stole my code!

[nslay]

It's not really stretching the analogy because GPL is incredibly contagious while cancer is not ... it has even been called 'viral'.  I tend to think GNU is more about hurting evil companies or being the victim of evil companies than they ever were about open source.  I don't think GPL is ever reasonable, although there are sometimes legitimate reasons to use it.  But I imagine most programmers now-a-days employ it needlessly without much thought.  For example, there is a C data structure library, GDSL, that uses the GPL.  Even though data structures are very basic components of software, the author has decided that you should be stripped of your rights to your own code for such basic functionality.  I'm not disputing the choice to use GDSL in this example, I'm simply pointing out the one-sided nature of the GPL.  Qt used to be another ridiculous example.  GUI is a basic component of software, but Qt used to impose GPL on programmers wanting a window and buttons ... does that make any sense?  It doesn't to me. Thankfully, there is LGPL.

[Sidoh]

Cancer isn't contagious to other people (projects), whereas swine flu (or any flu...) can.

That being said, cancer spreads within the body, taking over other cells, making it apt as well.

In either case, I disagree. Both cases imply accidental spreading, whereas you know exactly what you're doing with GPL.

If accidentally using GPL code => cancer, in the sense that it leads to pain and eventual death, then accidentally using commercial/proprietary code => actual death. I don't think you can separate those, and I don't think either works. :)

There's a reason the phrase "stretching the analogy" exists.  There's no reason an analogy has to cover every property of its target.

Then what it comes down to is using a loaded term to provoke an emotional response rather than a rational one.

I call it an inappropriate analogy.

I don't agree.  I think cancer is a very appropriate analogy.  I don't agree with the principles behind GPL, and I don't like that it forces projects to become GPL.

I like open source, but I don't like forceful open source.  GNU is the greenpeace of the software world.  fuck 'em.  plus, richard stallman eats his own feet pickies.  GROOOOSSS.  i can't support anything that has a leader who eats his own feet pickies on principle.

I'm much more in agreement with the principles behind licenses akin to the MIT license.

It's not really stretching the analogy because GPL is incredibly contagious while cancer is not ... it has even been called 'viral'.

I think the way you're supposed to look at it is how it spreads.  Cancer spreads very quickly (when untreated :)), and so does the GPL.

[iago]

I don't agree.  I think cancer is a very appropriate analogy.  I don't agree with the principles behind GPL, and I don't like that it forces projects to become GPL.

I like open source, but I don't like forceful open source.  GNU is the greenpeace of the software world.  fuck 'em.  plus, richard stallman eats his own feet pickies.  GROOOOSSS.  i can't support anything that has a leader who eats his own feet pickies on principle.

I disagree, it doesn't force anybody to become GPL. Projects *choose* to become GPL when they want to use GPL'ed code.

I'm much more in agreement with the principles behind licenses akin to the MIT license.

Same. I still respect GPL, though.

I think the way you're supposed to look at it is how it spreads.  Cancer spreads very quickly (when untreated :)), and so does the GPL.

No, it doesn't. It only spreads when you intentionally make the choice to use it.

[Sidoh]

I disagree, it doesn't force anybody to become GPL. Projects *choose* to become GPL when they want to use GPL'ed code.

I'm operating under the assumption that a hypothetical project would benefit from using the code.  Of course they "choose" to become GPL when they use GPL code, but that doesn't affect the point I'm trying to make; it at least has the potential to prevent otherwise interested programmers from using and promoting open source code.

Same. I still respect GPL, though.

I have a minimal amount of respect for it.  It's a small little grain of respect, though.  Very similar to the kind of respect I have for greenpeace.  kind of like "oh... you guys are cute.  trying to force everyone to support your cause."

No, it doesn't. It only spreads when you intentionally make the choice to use it.

Yes, and, so?  Sometimes the benefit of using nice code outweighs the retarded downfall of making your code GPL.  It's kind of like eating delicious cancerous foods.  You know that you'll probably get stomach cancer, but it's just too delicious to stop.

[MyndFyre]

@iago: Shh!  Let's talk about MY problems here for a while!

[Sidoh]

@iago: Shh!  Let's talk about MY problems here for a while!

Psh, this isn't much of a problem.  It gives you leverage over a company you want to work for! :)

[iago]

I disagree, it doesn't force anybody to become GPL. Projects *choose* to become GPL when they want to use GPL'ed code.

I'm operating under the assumption that a hypothetical project would benefit from using the code.  Of course they "choose" to become GPL when they use GPL code, but that doesn't affect the point I'm trying to make; it at least has the potential to prevent otherwise interested programmers from using and promoting open source code.

GPL is largely to protect programmers from corporations and other Big Evil Entities who are trying to benefit from work that somebody else did for free. I mean, why should somebody profit off my hard work when I get nothing (or nearly nothing)? BSD, MIT, etc are useful, but they don't stop others from profiting off somebody else's hard work.

Myndfyre -- that's getting alllllmost back onto your topic. ;)

Also, for what it's worth, I've run into a few projects that I wanted to use that used GPL. I asked the authors specifically if I could use part of their code in mine under a different license, and they granted me permission. Most of the time, the programmers aren't trying to force others to use GPL, and they'll happily re-license bits of code for you without any trouble.

No, it doesn't. It only spreads when you intentionally make the choice to use it.

Yes, and, so?  Sometimes the benefit of using nice code outweighs the retarded downfall of making your code GPL.  It's kind of like eating delicious cancerous foods.  You know that you'll probably get stomach cancer, but it's just too delicious to stop.

Your exact words were, "GPL spreads quickly when untreated" -- that's what that quote was referring to. Your "so?" implies that what I said was meaningless and, while that may be true, that doesn't change the fact that it's an intention spread.

[Sidoh]

GPL is largely to protect programmers from corporations and other Big Evil Entities who are trying to benefit from work that somebody else did for free. I mean, why should somebody profit off my hard work when I get nothing (or nearly nothing)? BSD, MIT, etc are useful, but they don't stop others from profiting off somebody else's hard work.

Which I'm not sure I agree with.

Also, for what it's worth, I've run into a few projects that I wanted to use that used GPL. I asked the authors specifically if I could use part of their code in mine under a different license, and they granted me permission. Most of the time, the programmers aren't trying to force others to use GPL, and they'll happily re-license bits of code for you without any trouble.

That's cool, but I'm not convinced it's true in general.  It also doesn't remove the discouragement that's clearly there.

Your exact words were, "GPL spreads quickly when untreated" -- that's what that quote was referring to. Your "so?" implies that what I said was meaningless and, while that may be true, that doesn't change the fact that it's an intention spread.

sometimes you can operate on cancer.

[Joe]

GPL is one of those things that works ideally in an ideal environment. If everyone decides to go GPL, everyone benefits. Like socialism.

(Now that I've ensured we never get back on topic..)

[rabbit]

Socialism killed 6 million Jews.  Are you saying that GPL is a Jew murder machine?

[iago]

To continue this retarded path of argument......

Christianity has killed more in their history.

Democracy has also killed more.

[rabbit]

Yeah, but relatively...Socialism killed 6 million in a few years, plus all the enemy soldiers.  Christianity and Democracy may have killed more, but not in such a short amount of time.

[iago]

So, why's it matter?

Also, it's nonsense -- socialism didn't kill those people. Brutal governments did, and that's not what socialism is about. The whole socialism thing is a bit of a charade in that case.

[Sidoh]

GPL is one of those things that works ideally in an ideal environment. If everyone decides to go GPL, everyone benefits. Like socialism.

(Now that I've ensured we never get back on topic..)

that's not true.  an entire industry would be decimated.  no reasonable number of people would be able to make money from software.

say what you will about profiting from software, but it's not something i'm willing to forfeit.

[Rule]

Socialism killed 6 million Jews.  Are you saying that GPL is a Jew murder machine?

???????