[newberger]

Ah, but the "freely give" in this case is not what you have
received but everything it touches. Although I'm no Microsoft fan,
I have to agree with them that the GPL is
virus like in that way.

Now the LGPL, if it can be applied to non-libraries might
be a good bet for gov't financed software. Although I don't
believe that enhancements should be covered.

And what do you mean "freely received"? We pay for that
software with tax dollars.

[altair]

I have to agree with them that the GPL is virus like in that way.

The GPL isn't virus-like, it's totally a virus. That's the way it was designed.

Now the LGPL, if it can be applied to non-libraries might be a good bet for gov't financed software.

It can, but what does it matter? You can distribute GPL'ed programs with other proprietary software. The GPL "infection" stops at whole program boundaries, it does not extend to a suite of other software.

[Havoc]

Depends on the approach you take. In house developement of software doesn't require selling it to the government. If it's published in house and distributed inhouse the only cost is the developement. And I know that there is a great deal of software written inhouse. So, there are limits to their rambling as to the applicability of the license and it's restrictiveness in use. In short, it sounds like someone's raising a stink about the possibility of not being able to send a constituent company a kickback in exchange for contributions. Boy that would suck wouldn't it LOL