●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
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
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This discussion has been archived.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
byAnonymous Coward 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...
"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.
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.
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.
Parent
twitter
facebook
●nt 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
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●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...