
	Where results make sense

Topic: Viral license

	Copyleft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Many open source software licenses, such as those used by the BSD operating systems, the X Window System and the Apache web server, are not copyleft licenses because they do not require the licensee to distribute derivative works under the same license.
		Microsoft, and others, in describing the GPL as a "viral license", may also be referring to the idea that any release of something new under the GPL would seem to create a positive feedback network effect, in which over time there will be an ever-expanding amount of copylefted code.
		These types of partially copyleft licenses can also be used outside the context of art: for GFDL this was even the initial intention, as it was originally created as a device for supporting the documentation of (copylefted) software—the result is however that it can be used for any kind of document.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Copyleft (4437 words)

	Talk:Copyleft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Viral licenses such as the MIT and Chinese and GNU license are all quite popular, and must be considered desirable by someone or they wouldn't be.
		The LGPL is a copyleft license that is not viral: all derivatives of the work must be free, but they can be combined with non-free works.
		Without the "viral" license, variant terms can apply to the forks and derivative works can be controlled commercially by the parties that extend or translate them, which can be considered as some of the disadvantages of non-copyleft "open source" projects.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Talk:Copyleft_licensing (6629 words)

	LWN: Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)
		In a 4 clause BSD license, the 3rd clause is the advertising clause.
		The 3 clause BSD license is the 4 clause BSD license minus the 3rd clause.
		The 2 clause BSD license is the 4 clause BSD license minus the 3rd and 4th clauses.
	lwn.net /Articles/95085 (3083 words)

	Systemic Bias of Wikipedia - Meta
		Viral licenses are a well discussed subject regarding trademarks, e.g.
		In particular, he's right that among free-software advocates (which I've been among for nearly 20 years), the "viral" nature of the GPL as opposed to the LGPL and other licenses is a hot topic, and hasa specific nature, and probably should be written about.
		to the average Chinese, "viral license" would be most readily understood in terms of the Chinese government's own patent pool, not any "copyleft"...
	meta.wikimedia.org /wiki/Systemic_Bias_of_Wikipedia (9091 words)

	Copyleft - Open Encyclopedia (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		One of the most important reasons creators or authors might want to make copyleft applicable to their work is that in so doing they hope to create the most favourable conditions for a wide range of people to feel invited to contribute improvements and/or elaborations to this work, in a continuing process.
		These three freedoms, however, do not yet insure that a work that is derived from the creation will be distributed under the same un-limiting conditions: in order for the work to be copylefted, the license has to make sure that the owner of the derived work will distribute it under the same type of license.
		The term originated as an amusing backformation from the term "copyright", and was originally a noun, meaning the copyright license terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) originated by Richard Stallman as part of the Free Software Foundation's work.
	open-encyclopedia.com /Copyleft (3806 words)

	The GPL is not viral (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		The most oft-mentioned myth about free software -- aside from the fact that the "free" does not mean "gratis" -- is that the General Public License, the example of copyleft free software licenses, is a "viral" license.
		viral: of, relating to, or caused by a virus.
		None of these definitions are applicable to a software license agreement, and it is silly to say that they do.
	www.metastatic.org /text/the-gpl-is-not-viral.html (629 words)

	FSF - GNU General Public License
		By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
		For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
		Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
	www.fsf.org /licensing/licenses/gpl.html (2681 words)

	Daniel Brookshier's Blog: Peer-to-Peer, JXTA, and Making a Lot of Money with Virul Marketing (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Viral marketing is a concept used in marketing and sales that describes how adoption of a product occurs and how it can be coerced to spread like a virus.
		Very simply, viral markets are those where one purchaser infects friends and acquaintances with their enthusiasm for a product or other wise causes them to use the product because it is required by the first person.
		This type of license is a great way to push the other products because it only takes one person to bring in many others who in turn bring even more.
	weblogs.java.net /pub/wlg/1155 (1195 words)

	The Cheiron Site - License (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		The terms of this license are a choice for all code that is not under direct effect of the SCSL License, this will be explained in more detail at the Cheiron Dual License that gives these license terms as a choise.
		In the article Sun Community Source License Principles the design principles behind the SCSL are explained and if you think compatibility of Jini™ services is a high priority you will agree with much of the rationale.
		The SCSL is a 'viral' license, not to the extent of the GPL, but you should be aware of this.
	www.cheiron.org /misc/license (1264 words)

	Freedom and Power (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		A license which puts a situation of power into the hands of end-users/reusing-developers (and hence an opportunity for mis-use of that power) is the BSD license.
		A license which keeps power with the initial developer, but provides the same level of freedom of use as the initial developer for end-users/reusing-developers is the GNU GPL2 license.
		A license which keeps power with the initial developer, and also denies the same levels of freedom of use as the initial developer for the end-user/reusing-developer is any closed-source license and other proprietary licenses.
	www.advogato.org /article/383.html (4643 words)

	license-discuss@opensource.org: 7893: Re: Licenses and subterfuge (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		To my mind this is a much better solution to the "viral license problem" than attempting to skirt the license in some technical way, which could be viewed as subterfuge.
		We are also going to be careful with the "standard" libraries, we use and inform legal of those which exist on the platforms we target only under viral licenses so that the corporate lawyers can inquire as to whether our uses are acceptable.
		However, that is the corporate policy we work within and while we can try to change it (likely futile, since the clients want our corporation to have such a policy, but the water wears away a mountain one drop at-a-time), we must abide by it.
	www.crynwr.com /cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/3/7893 (387 words)

	Microsoft -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Microsoft is the world's largest ((computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory) software company with over 50,000 (A worker who is hired to perform a job) employees in various countries as of May 2004.
		Microsoft develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of ((computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory) software products for various computing devices.
		One of their main claims is that the (Click link for more info and facts about GPL) GPL license (the copyright license that Linux and much open-source software is released under) is a viral license that threatens intellectual property.
	www.absoluteastronomy.com /encyclopedia/m/mi/microsoft.htm (5679 words)

	O'Reilly: The Chameleon and the Virus: More Thoughts on Java's Community License
		The license essentially changes its color based on the kind of software in which the Java source code is included.
		It's the polar opposite of the chameleon license.
		The stark terms of the viral GPL may have been necessary to grab people's attention back in the early 80s; but it's the chameleon license that will attract people to the Open Source community.
	java.oreilly.com /news/java_license_0399.html (881 words)

	A Critique of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Open Audio License
		The license also lacks a severability clause, which means that the entire license may become null and void should just one of its provisions be ruled to be legally invalid.
		From the text of the OAL, it is clear that the person or persons at the EFF who composed the license did not consult working musicians to determine their needs and do not understand the subtleties of the laws under which music is now distributed.
		Of more concern still is that the software license which the EFF chose to use as the basis of the OAL is the GNU General Public License (see http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html).
	www.brettglass.com /effcritique.html (2970 words)

	Cratchit.org Essay: Using the GPL
		The specific license we're discussing here (the GPL) isn't a restrictive one; but is designed to grant freedoms to the licensee that he wouldn't normally have, while retaining some very important rights for the author that ensure the continued availability of those rights.
		The only thing that makes it ´viral´ is the technology that has in recent years made publishing so effortless that it anyone can do it, thus spread the license.
		The GNU General Public License is an ingenious legal device that uses the fact that current copyright law treats computer software as if it were literary works to free the source code rather than restrict it.
	www.cratchit.org /essays/GPL.htm (2555 words)

	Copyleft (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		The viral metaphor is over-used but is reasonable to help distinguish between free software and open source in software and documentation projects.
		As they point out, computer viruses generally infect computers without the awareness of the user, whereas the copyleft actually grants the user certain permissions to distribute modified programs, which is not allowed under copyright law without permission of the copyright holder.
		In addition, the GPL merely states that if derivative works are released, that they must be released under the same licence; it does not state that this happens automatically.
	www.yotor.com /wiki/en/co/Copyleft.htm (3773 words)

	Viral-gpl - SourceWatch
		By contrast, a biological virus is characterized by the ability to slip into the body of a host organism without the host's immediate knowledge, and commandeer the host's cells to reproduce the virus in quantity.
		In the latter case, legal action against one or more "rogue programmers" will remove the distributor from any actionable position; and in the former case, the negative connotations of a "viral license" cannot apply, as the distributor has obviously seen fit to use GPL-licenced code voluntarily.
		As most professional programmers value their employment and reputation, and do not seek to be on the receiving end of legal action, it is not clear just who Microsoft believes will maliciously try to sneak some "virally-licensed code" into a project they are working on.
	www.sourcewatch.org /index.php?title=Viral-gpl (546 words)

	Slashdot \| Microsoft EULA stokes crusade
		A public license may preclude the use of restricted-license software in public-licensed work, but it won't try to force a restricted license to be treated as public.
		The BSD license lacks this protection, but it does have an advantage in that it more straighforwardly allows code to be (re)implemented in hardware and combined with other proprietary works where it makes sense.
		From my admittedly non-expert reading, nothing in any of the enumerated licenses could do that, unless Microsoft itself were to release the code under one of them, so all that's left is to prove that the lies are damaging to the plaintiffs, and that MS acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
	slashdot.org /articles/01/06/21/1810258.shtml (6429 words)

	SSRN-'Infectious' Open Source Software: Spreading Incentives or Promoting Resistance? by Greg Vetter
		Popularly, this is called a viral license, but the software is not a computer virus.
		A license is infectious when it has a strong scope for the modifications provision.
		This article assesses the efficacy of broad infectious license terms to determine their incentive effects for open source and proprietary software.
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=585922 (355 words)

	Linux News: Commentary : GPL: Viral Infection or Just Your Imagination?
		On the other hand, advocates of open-source licensing argue that drafters of those end-user licenses have a vested interest in creating fear of using open-source software.
		The FSF position is that all software should be "free software." It should be licensed such that it is freed for all who might encounter it without constraints.
		If the license limitations are not acceptable, whether it is the GPL or a restrictive end-user license, the choice is to avoid using that software or to negotiate a different license.
	www.linuxinsider.com /story/33968.html (1142 words)

	Creative Commons Deed
		If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.
		For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
		This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license).
	creativecommons.org /licenses/sa/1.0 (106 words)

	[pgAdmin-hackers] Microsoft SDK license disallows the use of "viral software"
		Cheers, Jean-Michel Microsoft SDK license disallows the use of "viral software" Jun 20, 2001, 22 :56 UTC (136 Talkback[s]) (14550 reads) (Other stories by Microsoft) [ Thanks to Andy Tai for this link.
		Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g.
		Recipient's license rights to the Software are > conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or > in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); > and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g.
	gborg.postgresql.org /pipermail/pgadmin-hackers/2001-June/001664.html (497 words)

	[Mono-list] The viral license problem (was System.CodeDom.Compiler licensing issues)
		Next message: [Mono-list] The viral license problem (was System.CodeDom.Compiler licensing issues)
		On Thu, 23 May 2002, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > Yes, but the GPL is not any more "viral" than a license from Microsoft > which limits your ability to use their code (e.g.
		> > > > When people say that the GPL license is "viral", this is precisely the > > problem they mean.
	lists.ximian.com /archives/public/mono-list/2002-May/005926.html (592 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)