Viral license: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:50, 24 November 2003

See GPL and other free software licenses to understand the details of what is meant by a viral license. Usually this term 'does not' imply required reintegration, which is the controversial requirement that open source objects to in both free software and Consortium license software.

Microsoft videly uses the term viral to portray both free software and consortia as being like computer virus creators, it is almost always better not use this term.

Revision as of 20:40, 24 November 2003 (edit) 142.177.81.73 (talk) (more exact reasoning why required reintegration is the core issue and a better term to use in almost all cases than "viral") ← Older edit		Revision as of 20:50, 24 November 2003 (edit) (undo) 80.186.81.123 (talk) (reversing the meaning. period.) Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	See [[GPL]] and other [[free software]] [[license]]s to understand the details of what is meant by a '''viral license'''. Usually this term ~~implies~~ [[required reintegration]], which is the controversial requirement that [[open source]] objects to in both free software and [[Consortium license]] software.		See [[GPL]] and other [[free software]] [[license]]s to understand the details of what is meant by a '''viral license'''. Usually this term ''''does not'''' imply [[required reintegration]], which is the controversial requirement that [[open source]] objects to in both free software and [[Consortium license]] software.

	~~Because~~ [[Microsoft]] ~~exploits the use of~~ the term '''viral''' to portray both free software and consortia as being like [[computer virus]] creators, it is almost always better ~~to refer to required reintegration directly and~~ not use this term.		[[Microsoft]] videly uses the term '''viral''' to portray both free software and consortia as being like [[computer virus]] creators, it is almost always better not use this term.