root@ihack.net (Charles M. Hannum) writes:

> No, it's not that simple.  It requires you to distribute the entire
> `derivative work' under terms with the same virus clause -- meaning
> that any derivative of that work is then `infected' by the GPL -- EVEN
> IF THE ORIGINAL GPLED CODE IS REMOVED.
> 
> This is why it's known as the `General Public Virus', and why it's not
> welcome in NetBSD.

And this WHOLE issue with GPL'd soft update code would matter IFF the
code was under a GPL license.  Which it is not.

--Michael