@Steinar @jwildeboer can we not use the word "viral" to describe "copyleft"?

It's a Microsoft-invented term to make copyleft licenses sound bad.

Language matters.

Follow

@rysiek If any licenses are viral its proprietary ones. @Steinar@snabelen.no @jwildeboer

· · Web · 2 · 6 · 13

@pettter @rysiek @Steinar @jwildeboer sorry, I don't understand. Are you hinting that proprietary licenses are viral?

@paoloredaelli In any sense that copyleft licenses are viral, so are proprietary ones, and often more.

@pettter @paoloredaelli The whole "viral" argument is IMHO planted by proprietary vendors long ago to attack FOSS. It is a term that should never be used it only helps "them".

@jwildeboer @pettter I know, I'm aware of that FUD. A license that solidly protects user rights is persistent, like GPL, LGPL and AGPL.

@clacke

It still doesn't make the term "viral" useful in a positive way, IMHO. Quite the opposite, again IMHO.

@rysiek @webmink @pettter @Steinar @paoloredaelli

@jwildeboer @rysiek @webmink @pettter @Steinar @paoloredaelli The term "viral" doesn't have to be useful in a positive way, and in this space it wasn't originally intended to. For constructive use, the other terms suggested here are better.

@pettter @rysiek @Steinar @jwildeboer With this in mind, I think terms like “censor resistant” or “censor immune” would make a lot of sense. Hell, the term I use most often is “robust”

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon @ UMU

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!