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. 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. I should have hunted harder for a word since, as you say, it's not helpful to use those words. -- Alastair Reid reid@cs.utah.edu http://www.cs.utah.edu/~reid/