●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
The simplest ways to avoid potential GPL violation, are:-
a) If you want to use an FSF license at all, use the LGPL version 2. Don't use any version 3 FSF license. Apart from anything else, doing so just makes them feel justified in creating bad licenses. (Which their 3 series are)
b) If you're going to use GPL code at all, make sure it's not something you intend to modify yourself.
c) Use other licenses (BSD, MIT, etc) as much as possible. In terms of non-GPL licensed code for you to use, the BSDs are free for the taking, and with the BSD license, you get to decide how much of your modifications (if any) you release. Their code quality is nearly always better than Linux anywayz.
If you're not using GPL licensed code, there is no way that you can be responsible for GPL violations. GPL advocates used to use this argument rhetorically, because they felt that this would mean that the person in question would have no choice. (the implication being that there was barely any non-GPL code, so they'd have nothing to be able to use)
Call their bluff.
twitter
facebook
byarose ( 644256 ) writes:
I didn't want to deal with the hassle of making sure I was strictly in compliance.
I suggest you stop using any and all third party code.
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
"Don't use any version 3 FSF license." Unless you don't like the idea that someone can patent the idea implemented in your code and then sue you for using your code...
Nobody cares.
"If you're not using GPL licensed code, there is no way that you can be responsible for GPL violations." But if you're using non-GPL licensed code you could be responsible for non-GPL violations. You can also be done for patent violations.
Did I mention that nobody cares?
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
You're the perfect anti-GPL troll. You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.
If only all code was so available.
And you, conflating GPLed source with Linux. Idiot.
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
You're the perfect anti-GPL troll. You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.
Version 3 of the GPL isthe most restrictive FOSS license in existence.
Here; go and look it up [opensource.org]. I'll wait.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byWNight ( 23683 ) writes:
You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.
Version 3 of the GPL is the most restrictive FOSS license in existence.
The most restrictive FOSS license, omg. That's like the meanest carebear.
It still only restricts people who want to close the source. That's a feature.
●rrent threshold.
●ent threshold.
bytuppe666 ( 904118 ) writes:
I'm a little surprised by the post. The simplest way to avoid any violation if to abide by the licensing it is under. This does not just apply to GPL but a whole host of licensing of code.
The you post a few licences you can use without giving back! If you are not giving back that points to code under a license that doesn't enforce it being worse.
Now what I found interesting is the lie, that GPL code is not quality code. Its bizarre. CODE QUALITY has nothing to do with the license. The fact that so many
bypetrus4 ( 213815 ) writes:
The you post a few licences you can use without giving back! If you are not giving back that points to code under a license that doesn't enforce it being worse.
a) Reciprocity paranoia is the sole justification for the GPL's existence.
b) People who actually write code don't have either the time or the mental focus for reciprocity paranoia. They're too busy.
Armchair "advocates," (even including Stallman himself, here) have the time to be obsessive about whether or not other people are, "giving back," because they're not spending their time doing anything more genuinely useful.
The BSD license, as mentioned, does not legally enforce, "giving back." If it's true, as
bytuppe666 ( 904118 ) writes:
Sure no problem. I never said people don't contribute to BSD projects :). In fact those that do contribute often do so under GPL and BSD Licenses.
In fact looking as a BSD/GPL operating system does not exist! In fact a quick look at my everyday OS I see GPL Kernel; GPL tools; BSD(Close enough) Windows; GPL Desktop; GPL Office; Apache Web browser. In fact the GPL parts often include BSD code.
The funny thing is I think BSD/GPL code are the same just one enforces sharing...but the mythical BSD OS is a good
bytuppe666 ( 904118 ) writes:
Yes absolutely. If you do not wish to contribute back do not use a code under a license where you have to :)
But, BSD etc is about sharing which is why The fuss every so often when Linux uses BSD code and wraps it in GPL code...or my favorite beryl using compiz code.
So yes if you don't want to share use a license that permits it. You are going against the spirit of the license.
...but please everybody knows what the difference between GPL and BSD is.
●rrent threshold.
byJoeBuck ( 7947 ) writes:
GPLv3 is actually more forgiving than GPLv2 of accidental violations. GPLv2 says that you forfeit the license and you need the copyright holder to reinstate it. GPLv3 provides a mechanism to correct the violation and have your permissions automatically reinstated.
If you're producing a product that does DRM, you'll need to avoid GPLv3.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
●rrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...