Probably this is the right place to ask.
Following such definition, some rocks would be alive (they can grow slowly by incorporating minerals on its structure, then when they break, the process can be described as reproduction, since the children still follow the same mechanisms, growing and reproduction, along thousands of years), and can metabolize certain minerals (metabolism: chemical processing oriented to keep existence, then, if some chemical process contribute to enforce the structure of the rock, and therefore its existence and persistence in time, it can be considered metabolism), respond to several types of stimuli, including electric, magnetic, pressure, etc. Fire or bacteria are just faster. Usually, the problem is just scaling: if we would be able to see rocks grow, we would easily exclude the terms grow, metabolism, reproduction from the definition.
The term "life" has been always very complex to precise. We have an intuition of what life should be, characterized by certain types of reproduction, not all, certain speeds of growth, not all, certain types of actions and reactions, not all, certain types of movement, not all, etc. But we have NOT a formal definition of life that can be applied to define if an entity is alive or not. Proof of this is the fact that we still don't know how to classify viruses: they have more similarities to rocks than to living beings, nevertheless they behave exactly like living entities, within scales and levels that match perfectly our intuition of a living entity.
So, life is still a subjective definition, discriminating entities moreover based on their dimensional scales (times, sizes, reactions, mutations), and certain subjective factors like self-generated movement (which rocks or robots can also perform due to environmental changes) or reproduction (which software programs can do perfectly). There is no unique definition of life. Every discipline related to biology could have a different one.
Finally, it's a nice exercise to find definitions of life and submit rocks, fire water drops or clouds to a strict formal test against them. It's easy to find that there are no concrete, formal, strict and objective differences between biologically living and non-living entities.