Talk:Viral license

References and language

Interesting how the article has survived over 5 years, no references, and at least redir-undo cycle. I've added some inline references, but without re-writing the article, so hopefully the refs are in context. I've also added a singular footnote, but there are definitely more to be found. This, for instance, is a good critique of the phrase, but I'm not convinced of the reliability of the source. And I also feel that the tone of the article could be brought more into WP:NPOV, but will leave it as-is now. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

---

//The interoperability clauses are often pragmatically inoperative

This point is pretty important, if true. Needs clarification.

//...due to the vigorous enforcement and strict interpretation of the GPL as it related to integration, aggregation, and linking...

//In recent years, a number ..... have dropped efforts and support .... in response to this trend.

What/whose actions are considered by "vigorous enforcement"? What trend?

//have vocally opposed this restrictive interpretation and enforcement.

"Interpretation" within the GNU community or what? --46.242.72.16 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

False/Misleading information

"Viral"

"The term 'viral' is an apt analogy for these licenses, as they are designed to spread widely in an uncontrolled manner."

This is opinion. The term viral is vaguely (not) defined - referring to computer virus or biological virus? While the qualities of a virus(computer? Biological?) do include "spread[ing] widely in an uncontrolled manner" they are also able to act within/on the host because of their ability (not granted, but taken) to act without consent of the host. Licenses are not operational code. It is text, that must be read and agreed to by both parties, unlike the functions of a virus(biological) that does not require agreement from the prospective host, nor a virus(computer) that typically is installed in stealth, without host knowledge. Finally, the use of the term "Virus" in this incorrect analogy is innappropriately misleading to the uninformed of both the computer and biological audiences.

The statement of intent is opinion, and obfuscation, I believe. It can be rephrased as observable fact: "The term 'viral' is an apt analogy for these licenses, as they are self-reproducing. Software or documents bearing such a licence may be reproduced, adapted, and propagated only as permitted by the licence, which thereby acts like DNA." Would that be acceptable? Dvalin dvalin (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the use of "Wild", or "Open" in place of "Viral", as the license is meant to distribute itself widely in an uncontrolled manner, while maintaining control of acceptance by the legally agreeing user. R0bert Jan, 2009

That is a Wild Goose Chase, I submit, since there is no evidence that the licences were ever intended to be wild. Careful reading of e.g. the GPL shows considerable thought has gone into mandating constraints to the spread of the intellectual property. The prime intent which can be inferred from such a reading is ensuring that derivative works provide all of the original benefits and obligations. Dvalin dvalin (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the term "reciprocal" now, which is the best term I have heard of. However, there should be probably a whole article about reciprocal vs. permissive (or "academic") licenses, and only having a sidenote about the viral term usage. The term viral, because of its negative associations, is anyway used often for non-neutral discussion. --TJ (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But "viral" is the term used on mailing lists, I observe. The "academic" "reciprocal", or "permissive" terms are unlikely to be helpful to people seeking to understand terms in common usage. Dvalin dvalin (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"The viral analogy..."

'The viral analogy for licensing can be extended to distinguish between concepts such as open source and free source. ' ^{[which is viral?]} (uncommented from source:) Not specified which one usually uses viral licences. Also, I have never heard of free software being called free source.

Citing the preceding Comment/Question, and the length of time it has gone unanswered, I am going to remove 'The viral analogy for licensing can be extended to distinguish between concepts such as open source and free source. ' on the grounds that it remains unexplained how the analogy extends to said concepts.

R0bert Jan, 2009

The alternative vaccine analogy

In 2003-Aug-14 Arnaldo Mandel, professor of computer science at the University of São Paulo (Brazil), sent a message to a now defunct mailing list called GPL-BR@yahoogrupos.com.br with the following observations, in Portuguese:

Olá a todos.

Estou há tempos lendo a lista, mas fiquei quieto até agora. Saio ganhando, já que li opiniões e idéias interessantes.

Uma coisa que me deixa um pouco perplexo é o fato de vários participantes, claros adeptos de SL, que compreendem a GPL, aceitem a terminologia microsoftiana e chamem a GPL de vírus.

A GPL não é um vírus: ela é uma VACINA. Sua função é impedir que um software livre seja contaminado por software proprietário.

Nessa metáfora do vírus existe um bem sucedido truque de marketing, trocando os papéis do que é saudável e o que é doente. É bom não cair nessa.

am

Which I translate into English like this:

Hi everyone.

I'm reading this list for a long time and stayed quiet so far. I go out winning, since I read interesting opinions and ideas.

One thing that makes me a little perplexed is the fact that several participants, clear free software enthusiasts who understand the GPL, accept microsoftian terminology and call the GPL a virus.

The GPL is not a virus: it is a VACCINE. Its function is to prevent free software from being contaminated by proprietary software.

In this metaphor of the virus there is a successful marketing ploy, exchanging the roles of what is healthy and what is sick. You'll do well not to fall into that.

am

I think this is an accute perception. Wouldn't it be nice to have it explained as an alternative analogy to the virus one in the main page?

I'm sorry but I can't find a reference to the original post by Arnaldo Mandel. I found this post of my own refering to it though.

Gnustavo2 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

'Viral' is not a prerogative term at all.

It simply refer to the propagation mechanics, and is neutral on the perceived positive or negative outcomes of such propagation.

79.23.224.80 (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. You can see it as viral or antiviral, or as a viral vector, but the point is the self-sustained propagation. Nemo 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not all there is to it. I understand that calling a license "viral" means that it can propagate like a virus. But connotations matter and when you call something "viral" you are associating it with the term "virus", which is more often than not taken as something bad. I'm not saying that it's factually wrong. Just that it can be used as a propaganda tool to make these licenses be perceived as something bad.

The vaccine analogy, on the other hand, is perfectly right too and has the benefit of associating the licenses with something good.

It's funny to realise that since Arnaldo Mandel talked about this in 2003 the term "viral" acquired a new "good" connotation, meaning something that propagates very fast (which, by the way, has nothing to do with free licenses). On the other hand, the term "vaccine" acquired a legion of people against it (the so called anti-vaxers). We live in interesting times... :-)

Gnustavo2 (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious Quotation

The cited page of text provides "weasel-words" as a basis for the term Viral License. The quote is misused, and actually represents "Viral License" as a sort of law-lingo, an unofficial term used in the realm of law.

R0bert Jan, 2009

Rewrite and removed tags

I rewrote this article based on the refs. Since basically everything is sourced now, I removed the POV and misleading tags, what do you guys think? If it still seems biased or incorrect let me know. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's awesome. Nice work! R0bert (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

POV editing

Recently User:Audriusa made a number of edits that seem to me overly point of view. Specifically, he/she altered the lead to emphasize how the term is pejorative and biologically incorrect. I think that this article should be focused on what the term means and why it is used while also noting disagreements about the naming. Specifically, if anyone wanted to work on the Misunderstandings section (or summarize parts of it in the lead), that would be a great addition to the article. However, simply stating the reasons that the term is inappropriate in the lead of the article seems inappropriate itself (sorry for my lack of eloquence).

In addition, I don't agree that the adjective viral is necessarily negative. Viral marketing and viral videos do not seem to hold a negative connotation. Much like a viral license, these are both spread intentionally by people unlike biological viruses which attack the body and spread themselves despite our best efforts.

Finally, there is a clearly negative effect of viral licensing from the point of view of BSD licensers. As stated in the article, BSD licensed software can be "eaten up" by GPL licensed software and people who prefer a more permissive license can be limited in how they use so-called "free software". I am not advocating this point of view, but it is worth considering.

Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that unsourced opinion needs to stay a long ways away from the article. Sourced opinion may be fine, and facts may be fine. It's just that going around slapping a {{fact}} or {{cn}} tag on every sentence of another editor is also counterproductive to the goal, "increasing the reader's understanding of the subject". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If doubt if any sources are required to support the claim that diseases and computer viruses cause negative associations for the most of the people. If such references are really needed, they are likely provided in the articles about viral diseases and computer viruses. Also, the term 'viral' is covered in the Wiktionary from where all 3 meanings are taken. Well, if this is really not enough, it is easy give a lot references, see [1] for instance. Also, the article only neutral when all major opinions are covered, and the 'viral license' term is opposed by some groups of people, this is as true as it is supported by other groups of people. I agree with your sentences that more references are and put them. A deny that this is a POV editing. Audriusa (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, Andriusa. "Viral" has come to describe anything that (and I'm having trouble knowing exactly how to put this) spreads on its own. For example, we might say that "viral marketing" is disseminated not by the actions of the marketing company, but by the reactions of the targeted demographic. There may or may not be anything inherently negative about this specific usage.

As I'm personally annoyed by that kind of licensing scheme, I can see why some might intend the term as sort of a smear, but, given the recent use of the word viral, I'd wanna see an example.

J.M. Archer (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "viral" pejorative, or is "copyleft" a euphemism?

"Viral" is an accurate description of how the GPL infects everything it touches. Imagine a 350,000 line of MIT-licensed source that make use of a small MIT-license project that has, in turn, carelessly included 12 lines of GPL-license source. Those 350,000 lines of source have now been infected by the GPL license.

GPL licensing terms are significantly more onerous than MIT licensing terms. 2607:FEA8:BB18:8F00:B259:5745:8B81:5C66 (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that the entire concept of a "viral license", and I believe the GPL is a virus, is inherently POV. The GPL (and LGPL) states its intentions, and the existence of the exclusion for dynamic linking seems to validate the impression (POV ...) that the GPL intends to be a virus. That said, despite being inherently POV (which is a bad thing for Wikipedia content -- I hope we can agree with that), this is too important. Tall Girl (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

pejorative terms/names do tend to be inherently POV. Some cleaning up, and source finding would do the article some good. Belorn (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Euphemisms (copyleft) also tend to be inherently POV.

2607:FEA8:BB18:8F00:B259:5745:8B81:5C66 (talk) 2607:FEA8:BB18:8F00:B259:5745:8B81:5C66 (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Redundant article or page?

Is there any reason why this article is not merged with Copyleft? After reading the discussion and the article, it seems like no one who is knowledgeable is under the opinion that there is actually any confusion with viral marketing. The only argument seems to be whether viral is derogatory or not. That being the case, all we are talking about is a persistent license and therefore copyleft which has its own similar discussion over whether or not it is a good thing or not. So I honestly ask, is there any example of a viral license that is not actually copyleft? If so then someone should add to the article to distinguish the two. Else if not then we should probably consider merging or redirecting to copyleft because I find it confusing. --Trakon (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments in the article history show that others have suggested a merge before now. Either copyleft or share alike are good ideas for a merge since they all refer to each other without much distinguishing them. --Trakon (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Copyleft article seems much more thorough than this one. It seems to me that "copyleft" is the term used mostly by proponents, and "viral" is a term uses mostly by critics. Attorney Lawrence Rosen suggested the neutral term "reciprocal license" but that hasn't caught on as much as "copyleft" has. It seems like a merge to Copyleft would be helpful. DMarti (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be merge, and there is an old 2013 consensus for it that never got implemented. This article contains no additional insight which isn't already in the copyleft article, and there is no sign of improving. The second sign for a bad article is when the article talk page has been used mostly for general discussion about the subject of the article, rather than how to improve the article. The third sign is that finding any reliable sources on the subject matter is extremely hard, where the wast majority simply refer to the single event created from the microsoft statement. All points towards a merge or an deletion of the article. Belorn (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this article was merged or copied into copyleft at some point but then restored, because they now have variants of the same paragraphs. I support keeping just one version of the content, whether here or there. Nemo 09:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to raise awareness for the fact that "viral" is, in principle, a more general term than "Copyleft", i.e. any license can be modified to be viral, without guaranteeing the freedoms copyleft licenses typically grant. If the article is to be kept, it should expand it's already existing, but insufficient paragraph about that distinction to highlight the difference. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do not merge, maybe rename. "Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free (in the sense of freedom, not “zero price”), and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. ... Copyleft is a general concept, and you can't use a general concept directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept. In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in the GNU General Public License." [2] Therefore, original Copyleft term is related only to free software and free content because of "modified and extended versions of the program to be free". A copyleft license is an implementation of the Copyleft concept. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license is not free license and therefore it is not true copyleft license. Also Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) is a viral license, but it is not free license and therefore it is not copyleft license. Also Apple Public Source License 1.x., Reciprocal Public License and Sybase Open Watcom Public License are viral licenses but they are not free software licenses according to the Free Software Foundation. Surprisingly the viral license term is really generic term for both free/copyleft viral license and non-free/non-copyleft viral license. Elena Voynikanis, PhD in CC Russia report wrote: "Margaret Jane Radin has established in international legal doctrine a concept of "viral contract" (Google, "Humans, Computers, and Binding Commitment." Indiana Law Journal. Fall, 2000). CC licenses are undoubtedly a variant of such contracts." TarzanASG (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing, without a merge, given the uncontested objection and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Viral license. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150316223946/http://www.buddlefindlay.com/article/2013/07/01/legal-update-on-information-and-communication-technology-%E2%80%93-july-2013 to http://www.buddlefindlay.com/article/2013/07/01/legal-update-on-information-and-communication-technology-%E2%80%93-july-2013

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Viral license. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718132324/http://devlinux.org/lw-gnu-published.html to http://devlinux.org/lw-gnu-published.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529202454/http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/10/msg00429.html to http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/10/msg00429.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a POV Fork

This article is clearly a POV Fork of copyleft. It should be merged into that article. --rtc (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's in WP:SUMMARY format. Klbrain (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is a POV fork and move to delete this article as everything is already explained better in the Copyleft article. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

POV fork

I have WP:BOLDly redirected this article to Copyleft#Viral license as there is not substantially more information here than there, and the article under this name is essentially a WP:POVFORK of that article. I would also be OK with a Criticism of copyleft article which has been proposed as an alternative name for this one, but it doesn't seen like there is much here that isn't there, so I would propose just merging any additional content here into Copyleft. CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)