3 ms·
I'm not sure GPL v3 is a failure, but it has created a really bad taste -- at least 3 times I've been unable to link GPL V2 and GPL v3 code. In one case I reimp
by CJefferson 10y ago
I'm not sure GPL v3 is a failure, but it has created a really bad taste -- at least 3 times I've been unable to link GPL V2 and GPL v3 code. In one case I reimplemented one piece of code, in the others I went in search of a BSD library instead.
- hackits 10y agoTake this with a grain of salt. If you can prove that you project can work without the GPL V2/V3 code being present (eg... the GPL code isn't a major contributing factor in the working of your program) then it stands that under copyright law (Here in Australia) that it isn't a Derivative work and thus not infringing on the copyright owner. Playing it safe GPL V2, give credit to the source code in your credits page and push back any changes you've made to their original source. GPL V3, you're kind of screwed (even linking) that you need to adhere to their license agreement and have your source code open source. Personally for open source projects I use GPL V3, and leave a comment in the license agreement the business can contact me for a difference license that comes with support contract.
- CJefferson 10y agoTo be clear, my problem isn't linking GPL and non GPL code, it is a GPL V2 project, wanting to include GPL v3 code! Same way the kernel can't merge GPL v3 libraries.