A: The GPL is viral!
B: No it isn't. You can only call it viral if you can get it by accident.
A: You don't stop calling a disease infectuous just because you know how not to become infected.
B: That's not what "viral" means to me. Stop calling the GPL viral.
A: Uh...

Does this sound familiar? I've had this argument a dozen times under the recent Misconceptions About the GPL, but you may have heard it elsewhere and on many other subjects. "Pluto is not a planet", "there is no civil war in Iraq", "the economy is not in a recession", are some examples of this argument you may have heard on the news. The basic structure is very simple; when you hear someone say "A is B", claim that the definition of B does not apply to A. Be creative; with so many dictionaries on the net, one of them is bound to have some clause you can latch on to. Winning the argument in this manner is virtually guaranteed; after all, who can argue against a definition? Your opponents will beat their heads against the wall trying to prove to you that the definition of B really does apply, but will be powerless to do so, giving you the appearance of victory.

Wait, "the appearance"? What argument have you really won here? An important emphasis to make here is that language is a method of communication. When a person says "A is B" in conversation, he is making an analogy. "It's freezing outside" really means "when I was outside, I felt very cold, as if I was freezing into an icicle"; it would be silly to point out that the outside temperature is actually only 4 degrees celsius and not actually below the freezing point of water. "I've had this conversation a dozen times" means "I've said the same things enough times that it has become tedious for me to repeat myself", and it would be inappropriate to point out that only ten such conversations actually took place. "She has an infectuous laugh" means "when she laughs it is difficult for me to keep from laughing too", and you would be thought insane if you pointed out that "infectuous" really refers to the transmission of a disease by bacteria or viruses that may occur whether you want it or not.

Likewise, when I say "The GPL is viral", I am really saying "when you put GPLed code in your project, you have to release your project under the GPL; it is as if the GPL was a disease, trasmitted by contact, and corrupting projects around the world." Yes, I am making an analogy. Yes, I have consciously chosen "viral" to convey a negative impression in my argument. And no, it would be rather useless to point out that some people restrict their definition of "viral" to biological diseases transmitted by biological viruses.

Language is a tool for communication, as must be once again emphasized. We speak in order to inform other people what we think. The words we use are tokens of meaning that carry a bundle of information in a small package, and while it is possible and desirable in some cases to define and use these tokens with absolute precision, as is done in most fields of science where absolute precision is the necessary goal, it would be futile to attempt to do so in normal conversation. Normal people expect to have a little bit of looseness in their speech. If we always stuck to the exact definitions of every word, including any cultural connotations attached to each one, there would be no poetry or literature. We would, in fact, approach the cultural level of Orwell's newspeak, when this process is taken to its ultimate logical conclusion.

Now let us return to the original subject. What is the purpose of an argument? When you are in disagreement with someone, the logical thing to do would be to find out whose views are correct. A logically correct view is one that follows the rules of logic to connect its abstractions to premises in reality, thereby ensuring that the abstractions are real and thus relevant to the real world. Abstractions which are not real are the source of delusions and the consequent failures in any endeavors based on those delusions you may choose to undertake, because reality will not change just because you believe it should. It is for this reason that we argue; to determine which of our premises or logical processes is incorrect, so that we could avoid failure in all its multifarious forms.

To determine whose side of an argument is correct, both parties must examine their premises and the logical paths that they have followed from those premises to their conclusions. Because contradictions do not exist in reality, and, consequently, in logic, any disagreement must necessarily stem from adoption of an incorrect premise or from incorrect reasoning. A logical argument will point out these errors, implicating one of the arguers to be wrong and the other to be right. The party that was wrong is the ultimate beneficiary of this process because now that he has learned the cause of his error, he will not make similar errors in the future.

When you forbid your opponent to use a particular word by pointing out that its definition does not fit the situation he is describing with exact precision, what have you achieved? He still believes what he believed before, he just can not use the word any more to describe what he believes. You have not corrected his views; you have merely shut him up!

Consider the "GPL is viral" argument I have presented earlier. If you forbid me to use the word "viral", my views will not have changed, since they are factual. It is true that the GPL requires any derived works to be GPLed, and since even a single borrowed line of code makes a project a derived work, all GPLed code is effectively a "GPL vector". It is also true that I consider the GPL to a disease, and this infection a spread of the disease. All that has changed is that I must now use more words to convey the same message, probably with less clarity than I could achieve with the original three word statement. My views are not untouchable; they are based on absolute reality as I see it. Because my perception of reality may contain mistakes, it is entirely possible to persuade me to change my views. All you have to do is point out which of my premises is incorrect. You might try to argue that GPLed code embedded in other projects does not require those projects to be GPLed (which would be false, since the license text says otherwise), or you might argue that the GPL is not a bad license, or that it would be a good idea to spread it (i.e. the GPL is viral, but that is a good thing). And yet, those are not the arguments that one would ever hear on this subject. What we do hear is not "the GPL is not viral", but "don't use the word viral". Or, in other words, "shut up!"

Why would anyone want to do that? Well, the truth is, some people couldn't care less about reality. To such people, reality is what they say it is, or what they hear said it is. It is utterly unimportant to them to find out who is right or who is wrong, since if there is no absolute reality, then there is no absolute right or wrong. The important thing is to promote views that they believe in, which usually are simply the ones that are beneficial to them in some way, and to suppress any opposing views. In the end, when their view is the only one that can be heard, that view becomes reality. Because the only basis for this "reality" is people's opinion, any dissenting opinions literally become existential threats! When you disagree with a person who believes in such a "reality", you are not just pointing out his errors, you are endangering the very fabric of his existence! It is no wonder they prefer to silence their opponents to logically arguing their views. Correctness doesn't matter. The last voice wins.

This philosophy is not limited to the GPL fanatic camp. Read any news articles and you will see the same methods being used by our politicians every day. For instance, there is no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons or that it is trying to make any, but read any news story about Iran and you will see something like:

The world's fourth largest oil exporter insists it wants nuclear technology only to cope with booming electricity demands, but Western nations say the program is a smokescreen for producing atomic weapons.

Variations of this statement appear in every news story about Iran, in clear demonstration of the unreal philosophy: "if you say something often enough, all dissenters will get tired of repeating themselves, and the view will become uncontested reality".

So what can be done about this problem? Perhaps nothing. When a person does not believe that his views must be logically based on reality, I doubt you will be able to persuade him of anything. I have tried this many times and when I close all the logical loopholes he either just stops talking or says something like "it's true because I'm right". Logic means nothing to these people, and when you use a logical argument they simply classify you as "unpersuadable" and leave you alone.

There is, however, something you can do for yourself. When you get embroiled in an argument concerning the definition of some word, ask yourself whether your opponent is contesting what you say or what you mean. Consider whether the definition of a word is really important or whether it is just a means of conveying your thoughts. If the latter, than state your definition and suggest that if the particular word is unacceptable then another word could be invented for the condition. For instance, we could define "shtunf" to mean "an evil entity that is transmitted from one software project to another when a shtunfed project's code is used in another project"; then we could factually state that "the GPL is shtunf" and proceed with any remaining argument. If this does not work, shut up and leave. You will achieve nothing by further effort. It is said that "all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing", but in this case it seems that there really is nothing that can be done :(