"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:06:26 Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Russel Winder <russel@russel.org.uk> wrote:
>> > It funny how when it comes to licences, viral is used as a
>> > derogatory
>> > term, but when used in marketing, viral is a positive goal that
>> > everyone
>> > wants to achieve.
>>
>> That is because you live in a capitalist economy. I don't find it funny at all. I am always shock to hear what people are willing to do and say for the pursuit of a profit. It is even more shocking when technologist and scientist start judging technologies and innovation based on profitability. One can one do? That is the world we live in.
>
> LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist
> anything. It's
> going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL,
> because it's
> viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih.

Not just everyTHING, but also "infects" everyONE who "comes in contact with it". Of course one can say the same for programmers who have worked for a software company. The risk of having foreign code that is patented or viral creeping into a pristine codebase isn't worth the risk (IMO) of hiring "tainted" programmers. Young programmers/programmer-wannabes need to consider this before signing-on to get that paycheck. Once "tainted", they most likely will never be able to become "untainted" (there are cures, but they are very unlikely to be enacted).

> It "infects" any
> code that you use it with. Many view the fact that the GPL does this as
> negative. In the case of the market campaign, the message is passed
> onto
> everyone that it comes into contact with, so the message becomes very
> widespread. This is obviously something that advertisers view as
> positive. In
> both cases, the term viral refers to how it spreads, not whether it's
> negative
> or positive. It's just that in the one case, having it spread like that
> is
> viewed as negative by some, and in the other it's viewed as positive.
> The word
> is used in essentially the same way in both cases meaning the same
> thing, and
> it in itself does not make that particular case either good or bad.

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j81rap$1f50$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>
> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait.

It's hilarious flamebait :)

"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j81rap$1f50$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>
>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>
>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>
> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will remain available with further distributions.
>
> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to infect you without your consent.

It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure. Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is especially "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just wanting to learn programming or build some software will download the viral code and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to make decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's like marketing cigarettes to youngsters!

"Chante" <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote in message news:j81ur0$1oij$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>
>> LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist anything.
>> It's
>> going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL, because
>> it's
>> viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih.
>
> Not just everyTHING, but also "infects" everyONE who "comes in contact with it". Of course one can say the same for programmers who have worked for a software company. The risk of having foreign code that is patented or viral creeping into a pristine codebase isn't worth the risk (IMO) of hiring "tainted" programmers.

Meh, thanks to the corrupt USPTO, all code is covered by one patent or another...programmer taint or not.

> Young programmers/programmer-wannabes need to consider this before signing-on to get that paycheck. Once "tainted", they most likely will never be able to become "untainted" (there are cures, but they are very unlikely to be enacted).
>

Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:
> "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j81rap$1f50$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>
>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>
>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and it serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will remain available with further distributions.
>>
>> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to infect you without your consent.
> 
> It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure. Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is especially "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just wanting to learn programming or build some software will download the viral code and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to make decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's like marketing cigarettes to youngsters!
> 
> 

This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code can never again work at another company because he is tainted.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:j81vad$1pl0$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Chante" <udontspamme@never.will.u> wrote in message news:j81ur0$1oij$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.350.1319394157.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>>
>>> LOL. I don't think that it has anything to do with a capitalist
>>> anything. It's
>>> going purely by the definition of viral. In the case of the GPL,
>>> because it's
>>> viral, it affects everything that it comes into contact wtih.
>>
>> Not just everyTHING, but also "infects" everyONE who "comes in contact with it". Of course one can say the same for programmers who have worked for a software company. The risk of having foreign code that is patented or viral creeping into a pristine codebase isn't worth the risk (IMO) of hiring "tainted" programmers.
>
> Meh, thanks to the corrupt USPTO, all code is covered by one patent or another...programmer taint or not.
>

While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the knowledge to do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind as a potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government are on one side, humanity on the other.

>> Young programmers/programmer-wannabes need to consider this before signing-on to get that paycheck. Once "tainted", they most likely will never be able to become "untainted" (there are cures, but they are very unlikely to be enacted).
>>
>
>
> 

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j81ve0$7jf$1@digitalmars.com...
> Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:
>> "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j81rap$1f50$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>
>>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and
>>> it
>>> serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use
>>> GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will
>>> remain available with further distributions.
>>>
>>> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to infect you without your consent.
>>
>> It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some
>> software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure.
>> Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is
>> especially
>> "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just
>> wanting
>> to learn programming or build some software will download the viral
>> code
>> and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to
>> make
>> decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's
>> like
>> marketing cigarettes to youngsters!
>>
>>
>
> This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code can never again work at another company because he is tainted.

It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?). Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to keep the possibilities open.

It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of "baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big a risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn programming, they should think about where they want to go with that in the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the possibilities. Caveat emptor.

Am 23.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Chante:
> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j81ve0$7jf$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:
>>> "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j81rap$1f50$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and
>>>> it
>>>> serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use
>>>> GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will
>>>> remain available with further distributions.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to infect you without your consent.
>>>
>>> It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some
>>> software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure.
>>> Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is
>>> especially
>>> "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just
>>> wanting
>>> to learn programming or build some software will download the viral
>>> code
>>> and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to
>>> make
>>> decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's
>>> like
>>> marketing cigarettes to youngsters!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code can never again work at another company because he is tainted.
> 
> It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?). Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to keep the possibilities open.
> 

I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
In the contrary, prior job experience (which mostly implies having
touched proprietary code) is often required or at least helpful, and
having worked with open source code (GPL or whatever) usually is a bonus.
Often having experience with Linux and other GPL'ed software from the
Linux environment is even required - many companies use Linux and
related software + their own proprietary stuff, so you end up modifying
GPL'ed code so it works with your product and thus have to touch it.

> It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of "baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big a risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn programming, they should think about where they want to go with that in the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the possibilities. Caveat emptor.
> 

I think this (don't look at GPL- or otherwise "viral" code if you want to become a professional programmer) is groundless fearmongering. Sounds like FUD directly from Microsofts worst marketers.


But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
a hindrance for a job?
Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
(Or both - "depends on the job"?)

Cheers,
- Daniel

On 10/23/2011 2:56 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
> who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
> Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
> a hindrance for a job?

In once selling a license to some software I wrote for $$$, the licensee's lawyers grilled me about if I'd worked on the popular GPL'd version. I told them I hadn't, and that satisfied them that I wasn't trying to pass off GPL'd code as my own.

They were just doing their due diligence.

If I had worked on the GPL'd version, then I'd have had to go through a lot more grilling to ensure none of that code had leaked into the code I was selling.

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j822kv$7jf$2@digitalmars.com...
> Am 23.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Chante:
>> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j81ve0$7jf$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:
>>>> "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff@dilacero.org> wrote in message news:j81rap$1f50$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>>>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and
>>>>> it
>>>>> serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily
>>>>> use
>>>>> GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and
>>>>> will
>>>>> remain available with further distributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going
>>>>> to
>>>>> infect you without your consent.
>>>>
>>>> It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or
>>>> some
>>>> software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that
>>>> exposure.
>>>> Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is
>>>> especially
>>>> "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just
>>>> wanting
>>>> to learn programming or build some software will download the viral
>>>> code
>>>> and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to
>>>> make
>>>> decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's
>>>> like
>>>> marketing cigarettes to youngsters!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code
>>> can
>>> never again work at another company because he is tainted.
>>
>> It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?). Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to keep the possibilities open.
>>
>
> I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
> has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
> In the contrary, prior job experience (which mostly implies having
> touched proprietary code) is often required or at least helpful, and
> having worked with open source code (GPL or whatever) usually is a
> bonus.

While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to hire programmers, the role description would be something like you stated above.

> Often having experience with Linux and other GPL'ed software from the Linux environment is even required - many companies use Linux and related software + their own proprietary stuff, so you end up modifying GPL'ed code so it works with your product and thus have to touch it.

That is one, pervasive (but how did it become to be pervasive?) scenario, but hardly the only one, as I have noted.

>
>> It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of
>> "baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral
>> source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source
>> code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big
>> a
>> risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn
>> programming, they should think about where they want to go with that
>> in
>> the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the
>> possibilities. Caveat emptor.
>>
>
> I think this (don't look at GPL- or otherwise "viral" code if you want
> to become a professional programmer) is groundless fearmongering.
> Sounds
> like FUD directly from Microsofts worst marketers.

I was coming from the perspective that no one like that is going to get anywhere near my codebase. I don't care what other people do/are doing. If there comes a point when I have to use someone else's code, I'll think long and hard before making any association. The ideal, for me, is allying with others who are also not "tainted". If I have to, and if I get the opportunity to, I will "grow" these people. Viral source code is, to me, like I described it in my first post. If there was any "message" in what I brought forth, it is surely, to not follow blindly and not to fall into "traps" placed by someone else's agendas. Use the ol' noggin, IOW. What one knows may not be as important as what one does not know.

>
> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
> who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
> Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
> a hindrance for a job?
> Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
> bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
> (Or both - "depends on the job"?)

"Job" is but one thing, freedom is another. "Job" may be the only option once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room" development for a product they offer from their own company once they have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or another company's source code.

While these may be novel thoughts, they are not hard to grasp. Maybe I'm the only one who values "untainted" (for lack of a better word at the moment), but maybe just for the time being. While I'm not quite yet ready to seek such associations, I don't mind hearing from others who have the same/similar value(s). I may have to get on with that. Obviously I can't "code the world over" by myself. Right now I'm reeling with what first-to-file means for me, where I can "find" the money to talk with good patent attorneys or find the time to do in-depth research into those matters. I certainly don't expect a "cure" to become available in my lifetime, :-(, but haven't lost hope completely for sueh. (And, for the record, there is no viral source code that I wish to use. I consider it "crap code". The patent issues in the other realm, DO bother me however).