On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:44:48AM +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > In that same sense the BSD license is also a virus (it spreads via 
> > word-of-mouth),
> 
> Which proves that your definition of virus is not very useful.  By your 
> definition, people are viruses (I can't reproduce without a female, and a 
> female is an external organism).  By your definition, opinions are 
> viruses, and so is heat energy.  You have a wrong definition of virus.

A male and a female reproducing together is sexual reproduction.  This
is a much different relationship from a host and a parasite.

The defintion of virus I use is the same definition, I think, that the
foldoc authors used when they wrote:

     Unlike a {worm}, a virus cannot infect other computers without
     assistance.  It is propagated by vectors such as humans
     trading programs with their friends (see {SEX}).  The virus
     may do nothing but propagate itself and then allow the program
     to run normally.

It is precisely *because* the GPL cannot be spread without assistance
that it is similar to a computer virus (you hit a pet peeve of mine in
[ruby-talk:75566] when you likened an email worm to a virus.  There is a
clear, well-defined, distinction between the two).

> > Using it to describe the GPL (or any other religious document) should 
> > be avoided whenever possible.
> 
> You must have a very weird definition of religous if you think that the 
> GPL is a religious document.  RMS is an atheist btw, and I am a 
> Christian.

I also apparently have a very "weird" sense of humor.

---
Paul "the misunderstood comedian" Brannan