[sword-devel] FireBible 1.2 Released
I just obserevd that on May 2, 2011, Brian released FireBible 1.2 See http://thegoan.com/blog/firebible-1-2-released/ This adds support for Firefox versions 4 through 6 (yes, 6); so overall it is compatible with Firefox 3 and above. In this version, he also added the ability to view Bibles side by side. Well done! Brian. :) -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/FireBible-1-2-Released-tp3613957p3613957.html Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] FireBible 1.2 Released
Doesn't seem to run for me. I have a working BibleDesktop installation, the java test passes, I've pointed the jsword folder and module folders correctly, but when I try to pick a Bible in FireBible, I get a dialog box: JSword could not be loaded from the specified directory. Please correct this location (Tools > FireBible) before proceeding. This is on an OpenSUSE 11.3 machine using Firefox 3.6.17 On 06/21/2011 08:50 AM, David Haslam wrote: I just obserevd that on May 2, 2011, Brian released FireBible 1.2 See http://thegoan.com/blog/firebible-1-2-released/ This adds support for Firefox versions 4 through 6 (yes, 6); so overall it is compatible with Firefox 3 and above. In this version, he also added the ability to view Bibles side by side. Well done! Brian. :) -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/FireBible-1-2-Released-tp3613957p3613957.html Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page -- --- The question is not "Have you accepted Jesus into your heart", but "Has Jesus accepted you into His heart?"; not "have you given your whole life for God", but "has God given His whole life for you" - Pr Bryan Wolfmueller, 2010 ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] BREW Development?
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:00:45 PM Greg Hellings wrote: > As I understood it the FSF had (at least in the past) declared that > there was an incompatibility. But IIRC, the incompatibility was > actually that Apple is always violating the GPL with its distribution. > Since the GPL states that the person doing the distribution is > required to make the code and any modifications to the program > publicly available to the people to whom they distribute the app. > Thus, to be in compliance Apple would need to have a place where > people could download the source code plus their technology for > digitally signing the compiled apps, etc, in order to be in touch with > the GPL. (That's how I understood it. That could be totally bogus.) INAL (nor do I play one on tv, and I haven't even slept at a holiday in express) but there is a Linux distribution called Mepis that is a derivative of Debian that got in hot water with the FSF for not distributing the source code themselves but rather upstream debian distribution. The FSF said that was not a valid way to distribute the source in compliance with the GPL, and thus Mepis had to distribute source packages drectly even if they did not modify the code. I would imagine app stores fall under the same issue. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] BREW Development?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:39 AM, David (Mailing List Addy) wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:00:45 PM Greg Hellings wrote: >> As I understood it the FSF had (at least in the past) declared that >> there was an incompatibility. But IIRC, the incompatibility was >> actually that Apple is always violating the GPL with its distribution. >> Since the GPL states that the person doing the distribution is >> required to make the code and any modifications to the program >> publicly available to the people to whom they distribute the app. >> Thus, to be in compliance Apple would need to have a place where >> people could download the source code plus their technology for >> digitally signing the compiled apps, etc, in order to be in touch with >> the GPL. (That's how I understood it. That could be totally bogus.) > > INAL (nor do I play one on tv, and I haven't even slept at a holiday in > express) but there is a Linux distribution called Mepis that is a derivative > of Debian that got in hot water with the FSF for not distributing the source > code themselves but rather upstream debian distribution. The FSF said that was > not a valid way to distribute the source in compliance with the GPL, and thus > Mepis had to distribute source packages drectly even if they did not modify > the code. I would imagine app stores fall under the same issue. That is in line with my understanding also. However, if the copyright holder does not bring the case against Apple, I am doubtful anyone else would be able to legitimately bring suit. So just don't go screaming to or at Apple about the GPL nature of the App and you can probably slip in under the radar. It may not be technically compliant on Apple's part, but we're the ones who get to make a fuss about it, not them. --Greg ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] BREW Development?
> That is in line with my understanding also. However, if the copyright > holder does not bring the case against Apple, I am doubtful anyone > else would be able to legitimately bring suit. So just don't go > screaming to or at Apple about the GPL nature of the App and you can > probably slip in under the radar. It may not be technically compliant > on Apple's part, but we're the ones who get to make a fuss about it, > not them. There is a difference here re Mepis: All our applications are distributed with source code available. If we choose any kind of hosting provider to dump the binary on and another hosting provider to share the source code from, it is still us who do the distributing. I am sure if you look into the guts of stuff like Rapidshare or whatever else people use to share stuff with, we will find T&Cs which are contrary to the GPL - if the distribution site was the primary distributor. But as it is, PocketSword gets distributed by Nic, via the AppStore and iTunes. And Nic is in compliance because the source code is at Sourceforge or Google or whereever. Peter -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] BREW Development?
On Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:48:24 AM Greg Hellings wrote: > So just don't go > screaming to or at Apple about the GPL nature of the App and you can > probably slip in under the radar. It may not be technically compliant > on Apple's part, but we're the ones who get to make a fuss about it, > not them. Well yes, I agree. I had assumed we were using some sort of implicit exception to allow for app store distribution, which is allowed under section 7 of the GPL v2 (IIRC). I was pointing out re the original topic (BREW) that app stores are not an open distribution system either, even if barrier to entry is much easier. I merely cited the FSF cases as examples of where app store distribution is not in compliance with GPL. ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
