Alastair David Reid <reid@cs.utah.edu> wrote,
Alastair David Reid <reid@cs.utah.edu> wrote,
o BSD fans think that "contamination" is bad o LGPL fans think that "contamination" is good
Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes:
*sigh* Could we leave the rhetoric to Craig Mundie? Everybody thinks that "contamination" is bad. This is why such words are not helpful in a technical discussion.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to get into that sort of argument.
Ok, sorry for tripping over it, then.
I needed a word for <whatever it is that LGPL does which has consequences for some/all non-LGPL code that is linked/compiled against it and/or combined with> and the only words I could think of are the ones the anti-GPL folk use. The quotes round the word were intended to mean that the meaning wasn't simply contaminate.
You can call LGPL, for example, "protective", as it protects the code against closed forks. If you think that this word is too positive, call it "restrictive" if you like. Cheers, Manuel