See this article, which lets us know that viruses and bacertia could have a common ancestor: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/what-came-first-cells-or-viruses
Also note that viruses make decisions (which at some level might imply motion, regardless of whether they can translocate their entire bodies unaided).
Viruses have taxonomy, and relationships to other viruses.
Viruses are comprised of multiple atoms, in a structured way. They contain fat, protein, and DNA.
Viruses can be destroyed (for example, by heat or other means). Depending on who you ask, they may or may not term that as death. And if it can die, it's perhaps alive, in some sense.
While viruses need cells from other organisms to reproduce, I don't see how that, in and of itself, differentiates them from parasitic animals.
With these things in mind, and others we already should know, I don't see why they should be excluded from being considered alive.
I think the problem here is that life is an abstract word and it is based on context. I mean, in what contexts are viruses alive, or not alive? In what contexts are animals alive? In what context can computers be alive? They're all alive in some contexts. If you separate context and life, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attempt to use logic to determine what is alive and what isn't.
So, rather than trying to make life describe its own context (which doesn't make sense), I think we have to describe in what way things are alive. I mean, pick your criteria and give it a context name.