●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This discussion has been archived.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.
byimpaledsunset ( 1337701 ) writes:
That's why I use real free and open source licenses, non abominations like the GPL. Making your software "free" and then fighting people using it with legal pressure, eh?
I put everything in the public domain, and I sleep well at night without having nightmares that someone might have violated my license.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I like keeping my software free for everyone for ever. I'm glad you enjoy end users being robbed of their freedom.
bydfghjk ( 711126 ) writes:
Public domain does keep "my software" free for everyone "for ever". It can't do anything but that.
GPL is about forcing future software to also be free. Not using it doesn't rob anyone of anything.
byasdf7890 ( 1518587 ) writes:
GPL is about forcing future software to also be free. Not using it doesn't rob anyone of anything.
GPL is about forcing future software that uses on GPLed code to also be free. You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?
Got GPLed code in your project by accident? Then you didn't do due diligence properly. Your fault, not the GPL's fault.
Got GPLed code in your project by no fault of your own (bad contractor, used a library or other source that itself broke GPL, or some such reason)? That does sometimes happen and here you need to discuss it with the owner
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?
Yes, sometimes. Here's a concrete example. I library that I wrote uses libavcodec. My library is MIT licensed, and someone who uses my library also uses an Apache licensed library (I can't remember it's name; something for parsing MPEG-4 atoms) and released his code under the BSD license. Libavcodec is normally LGPL, so this is fine. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen or so optional files in libavcodec (e.g. some MMX optimisations) that are GPL'd. Some distributions include these in their binary versions. They then can't distribute this application as well without violating the GPL (because the Apache license is not compatible with GPLv2).
The GPL'd files are not included in the build of libavcodec on my machine, nor on the machine of the person who wrote the application using my library, but his code can't be shipped with Debian because the person who maintains an upstream package chose to incorporate some GPL'd code into their stock build of a library.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byKWTm ( 808824 ) writes:
"You don't want to be held by the GPL? Then don't use GPLed code. Is it really that difficult?"
Yes, sometimes. Here's a concrete example. I library that I wrote uses libavcodec. My library is MIT licensed, and someone who uses my library also uses an Apache licensed library (I can't remember it's name; something for parsing MPEG-4 atoms) and released his code under the BSD license. Libavcodec is normally LGPL, so this is fine. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen or so optional files in libavcodec (e.g. so
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
You're missing the point. The question was whether it is hard to avoid GPL'd code. I did not use any GPL'd code when writing my library. The person writing an application using it did not use any GPL'd code. The person creating the package for Debian was unable to do so because of the GPL. Now, I'm fine with Debian not carrying this code. I don't use Debian, and there aren't many Debian users whose opinions I care about. I don't lose anything. Only Debian users (and maybe users of a few other system
byTrue Grit ( 739797 ) * writes:
The problem is not mine,
In other words, *you* didn't have a problem avoiding GPL'd code, which was the GGP's point.
it belongs to downstream distributors who find that the GPL has snuck in via the actions of another package maintainer.
Except that the 'downstream distributor' and the 'package maintainer' in this case are one in the same, the Debian distro and a Debian package maintainer. Your example is not one of GPL'd code mixing with non-GPL'd code by 'accident', your example is merely one of someone at Debian recognizing that *their* distro had a particular problem here and then *avoiding* that outcome... which is precisely what you say is supp
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
BSD and MIT, yes. Apache, no. The GPLv3 has a specific exemption for the clauses in the Apache license that are not compatible with the GPLv2. You can not use GPLv2 code and Apache Licensed code in the same project.
●urrent threshold.
● 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
VMS is like a nightmare about RXS-11M.
●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...