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) davidsli...@gmx.net 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 TCs 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
Re: [sword-devel] BREW Development?
On Friday, June 17, 2011 01:12:30 PM Nic Carter wrote: Curious. A brief reading of the GPL licence that we use shows that it says nothing about the source being able to be compiled to work on a platform. The fact that the src is available freely seems to satisfy it, so the fact that you then need to pay apple for the privilege to run it on your (unjailbroken) iPhone isn't an issue. Altho, reading the licence again (it's been years!) reveals to me that I should more explicitly state in the app where you can grab the src from that it's GPL'd... I may be a little slack in not stating that clearly enough in the About section of the app. Will fix that for the next release. :) The compiling and running on device X only applies to GPLv3 (and I assume later) it's a loop-hole in GPLv2, there's even a term for not allowing modified software on a device, tivioization (from the fact that tivo was, if not the first, the most famous for it). And as far as notice, there were in GPLv2 specifically mentioned ways to go about notifying users of the GPL status for both CLI and GUI applications. Now for app stores in general I have seen statements (I think it was an identi.ca post) from the FSF stating that app stores are considered defictive by design and are specifically not GPL compatible. There was even action taken WRT GnuGo which resulted from the application being taken down from the app store. I can look-up specifics later this next week if it would be helpful. ___ 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 14, 2011 11:18:57 PM Mike Hart wrote: ottom line, BREW is not an open system, and is not compatible with the business model Sword and GoBible operate under (free, Free, FREE.) From what I understand App Repos like the Apple App Store and the Android Market are also not open systems and are technically not GPL compatible, though I have been assuming we've been giving an understood license exception to And Bible, Pocket Sword and probably now whatever Mac Sword's new name is (escapes me off hand) so they can be distributed under their respective repos. But I could be mistaken on that. ___ 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?
My understanding of GPL (other than my general dislike for it) is that it is fine with iOS development as it stands. Originally you weren't allowed to share ANY code you had written for iOS, as part of the insane NDA that you needed to agree with in order to get the iOS APIs, but that has all passed, and Apple encourages sharing of code so they get more developers and more apps and more ppl buying their devices (they _do_ like making money, it appears!)... ;) So, PocketSword is GPL'd, the source is available for download, and the GPL licence is installed on each user's device when they install PS from the app store. True, if they want to compile it themselves and install it on their own device, that's a little bit of a hassle, but they _can_. :) If anyone can see any issues or flaws in the above, please let me know, cause I'd rather PS was doing the right thing. I believe the FSF has said iOS development and OSS can mix, so that's all good AFAIK... In fact, I know of an app (Colloquy) which is OSS on both the Mac iOS, but if you get it from the iOS App Store, they charge 99c or something. I chose to download the src and compile and install myself, which meant it was free... It may be their way of trying to recover some of the fees that Apple charge to be able to be a developer on the App Store ($99 per year, which is actually why PocketSword is available on the App Store under my name, rather than CrossWire Bible Society, cause I just used my account, rather than pay an additional $99 per year for a CrossWire account!)... Ummm, so, yes, if you can point out how the distribution model of an app affects how it is GPL compatible, I'd be very interested in hearing it. :) Thanks, ybic nic... :) Nic Carter PocketSword Developer - an iPhone Bible Study app www: http://crosswire.org/pocketsword iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/app/Pocketsword/id341046078 Twitter: http://twitter.com/pocketsword On 17/06/2011, at 10:01 AM, David (Mailing List Addy) wrote: On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:18:57 PM Mike Hart wrote: ottom line, BREW is not an open system, and is not compatible with the business model Sword and GoBible operate under (free, Free, FREE.) From what I understand App Repos like the Apple App Store and the Android Market are also not open systems and are technically not GPL compatible, though I have been assuming we've been giving an understood license exception to And Bible, Pocket Sword and probably now whatever Mac Sword's new name is (escapes me off hand) so they can be distributed under their respective repos. But I could be mistaken on that. ___ 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 ___ 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?
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.) So long as you aren't about to chase down Apple and yell at them for not giving away your source, but state in the program where the source is available and that it's under the GPL, etc, then you're probably good to go from a practical standpoint even if Apple is technically dropping the ball on the GPL. --Greg On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Nic Carter niccar...@mac.com wrote: My understanding of GPL (other than my general dislike for it) is that it is fine with iOS development as it stands. Originally you weren't allowed to share ANY code you had written for iOS, as part of the insane NDA that you needed to agree with in order to get the iOS APIs, but that has all passed, and Apple encourages sharing of code so they get more developers and more apps and more ppl buying their devices (they _do_ like making money, it appears!)... ;) So, PocketSword is GPL'd, the source is available for download, and the GPL licence is installed on each user's device when they install PS from the app store. True, if they want to compile it themselves and install it on their own device, that's a little bit of a hassle, but they _can_. :) If anyone can see any issues or flaws in the above, please let me know, cause I'd rather PS was doing the right thing. I believe the FSF has said iOS development and OSS can mix, so that's all good AFAIK... In fact, I know of an app (Colloquy) which is OSS on both the Mac iOS, but if you get it from the iOS App Store, they charge 99c or something. I chose to download the src and compile and install myself, which meant it was free... It may be their way of trying to recover some of the fees that Apple charge to be able to be a developer on the App Store ($99 per year, which is actually why PocketSword is available on the App Store under my name, rather than CrossWire Bible Society, cause I just used my account, rather than pay an additional $99 per year for a CrossWire account!)... Ummm, so, yes, if you can point out how the distribution model of an app affects how it is GPL compatible, I'd be very interested in hearing it. :) Thanks, ybic nic... :) Nic Carter PocketSword Developer - an iPhone Bible Study app www: http://crosswire.org/pocketsword iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/app/Pocketsword/id341046078 Twitter: http://twitter.com/pocketsword On 17/06/2011, at 10:01 AM, David (Mailing List Addy) wrote: On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:18:57 PM Mike Hart wrote: ottom line, BREW is not an open system, and is not compatible with the business model Sword and GoBible operate under (free, Free, FREE.) From what I understand App Repos like the Apple App Store and the Android Market are also not open systems and are technically not GPL compatible, though I have been assuming we've been giving an understood license exception to And Bible, Pocket Sword and probably now whatever Mac Sword's new name is (escapes me off hand) so they can be distributed under their respective repos. But I could be mistaken on that. ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ 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?
Curious. A brief reading of the GPL licence that we use shows that it says nothing about the source being able to be compiled to work on a platform. The fact that the src is available freely seems to satisfy it, so the fact that you then need to pay apple for the privilege to run it on your (unjailbroken) iPhone isn't an issue. Altho, reading the licence again (it's been years!) reveals to me that I should more explicitly state in the app where you can grab the src from that it's GPL'd... I may be a little slack in not stating that clearly enough in the About section of the app. Will fix that for the next release. :) Thanks, ybic nic... :) On 17/06/2011, at 1:00 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.) So long as you aren't about to chase down Apple and yell at them for not giving away your source, but state in the program where the source is available and that it's under the GPL, etc, then you're probably good to go from a practical standpoint even if Apple is technically dropping the ball on the GPL. --Greg On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Nic Carter niccar...@mac.com wrote: My understanding of GPL (other than my general dislike for it) is that it is fine with iOS development as it stands. Originally you weren't allowed to share ANY code you had written for iOS, as part of the insane NDA that you needed to agree with in order to get the iOS APIs, but that has all passed, and Apple encourages sharing of code so they get more developers and more apps and more ppl buying their devices (they _do_ like making money, it appears!)... ;) So, PocketSword is GPL'd, the source is available for download, and the GPL licence is installed on each user's device when they install PS from the app store. True, if they want to compile it themselves and install it on their own device, that's a little bit of a hassle, but they _can_. :) If anyone can see any issues or flaws in the above, please let me know, cause I'd rather PS was doing the right thing. I believe the FSF has said iOS development and OSS can mix, so that's all good AFAIK... In fact, I know of an app (Colloquy) which is OSS on both the Mac iOS, but if you get it from the iOS App Store, they charge 99c or something. I chose to download the src and compile and install myself, which meant it was free... It may be their way of trying to recover some of the fees that Apple charge to be able to be a developer on the App Store ($99 per year, which is actually why PocketSword is available on the App Store under my name, rather than CrossWire Bible Society, cause I just used my account, rather than pay an additional $99 per year for a CrossWire account!)... Ummm, so, yes, if you can point out how the distribution model of an app affects how it is GPL compatible, I'd be very interested in hearing it. :) Thanks, ybic nic... :) Nic Carter PocketSword Developer - an iPhone Bible Study app www: http://crosswire.org/pocketsword iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/app/Pocketsword/id341046078 Twitter: http://twitter.com/pocketsword On 17/06/2011, at 10:01 AM, David (Mailing List Addy) wrote: On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:18:57 PM Mike Hart wrote: ottom line, BREW is not an open system, and is not compatible with the business model Sword and GoBible operate under (free, Free, FREE.) From what I understand App Repos like the Apple App Store and the Android Market are also not open systems and are technically not GPL compatible, though I have been assuming we've been giving an understood license exception to And Bible, Pocket Sword and probably now whatever Mac Sword's new name is (escapes me off hand) so they can be distributed under their respective repos. But I could be mistaken on that. ___ 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 ___ 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?
Just to follow up on BREW. Unlike J2ME apps, Each Application published via = BREW is for a single model of phone on a single wireless carrier only. To publish a Bible app on a single model phone on all phone carriers in the US, That would be about 20 publications. Each publication has a certification process that runs into the hundreds of dollars. While I thought I saw there was now a 'free' alternative, it appears to be limited to ATT carrier applications only and is about the prove your background preliminary steps (also over a hundred dollars) and not the publication process. Bottom line, BREW is not an open system, and is not compatible with the business model Sword and GoBible operate under (free, Free, FREE.) -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3598600.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] BREW Development?
Thanks Mike, for following this through. A shame, but can not be helped. Peter On 15/06/11 07:18, Mike Hart wrote: Just to follow up on BREW. Unlike J2ME apps, Each Application published via = BREW is for a single model of phone on a single wireless carrier only. To publish a Bible app on a single model phone on all phone carriers in the US, That would be about 20 publications. Each publication has a certification process that runs into the hundreds of dollars. While I thought I saw there was now a 'free' alternative, it appears to be limited to ATT carrier applications only and is about the prove your background preliminary steps (also over a hundred dollars) and not the publication process. Bottom line, BREW is not an open system, and is not compatible with the business model Sword and GoBible operate under (free, Free, FREE.) -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3598600.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 ___ 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?
I have just started a new wiki page, already with a rudimentary sub-section for BREW. http://crosswire.org/wiki/Ideas_for_new_projects Please feel free to contribute content to it. David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3462316.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] BREW Development?
Phones with Brew generally do not have Java ME, so Go Bible applications cannot be installed. However, there are already solutions to porting J2ME apps to BREW. Example: http://blue-edge.bg/brew.html Mike, please evaluate this one, and report your findings to CrossWire. David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3462363.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] BREW Development?
I ofund this: http://willperone.net/Code/brewcpp.php Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Von: David Haslam dfh...@googlemail.com An: sword-devel@crosswire.org Betreff: Re: [sword-devel] BREW Development? Phones with Brew generally do not have Java ME, so Go Bible applications cannot be installed. However, there are already solutions to porting J2ME apps to BREW. Example: http://blue-edge.bg/brew.html Mike, please evaluate this one, and report your findings to CrossWire. David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3462363.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 -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! 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?
I guess a separate page would have been preferable, Chris. e.g. one headed Ideas for further projects. with subsections for == Ideas for front-end applications == === Platforms with no front-end application === === Application frameworks with no front-end application === PS. As for navigation and fnding stuff, the use of wiki categories is very efficient. I myself have added a lot of these to pages started by other developers. I've rarely observed that the presence of less relevant content made it harder to find what I'm currently searching for. So that may have reflected individual ways of working while using the wiki. If your assertion had any substance in this regard, then Wikipedia itself would suffer the same drawback. It's astounding popularity proves otherwise. David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3459781.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] BREW Development?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/04/2011 08:15, David Haslam wrote: I guess a separate page would have been preferable, Chris. To me, it doesn't matter if those non-projects are on the same page, or a different page. What I find useful is that it is an acknowledgement of the platform/whatever, but that it is probably otherwise unknown to _The Sword Project_. Some of those entries should be updated, and otherwise cleaned up. (EG: Kindle, with an explanation of why a _Sword Project_ front end can not be created for it, if official approval/authorization of the app is required.) jonathon - -- All emails sent to this with email address with a precedence other than bulk, or list, are forwarded to Dave Null, unread. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNrmhZAAoJEDqP6lg9AbnK3bQIAKh45Up0dGs6QObNNRh1GnOj oT/mNvaQXz3skLIeWi9T3mKrhJvgEests7AaFKjODsyXjy4nRGIYJl57w2M1ff3z kPXzOKdEwx6ObM94O9i4TD9fxiUpgoNILK0mNYm1ZdnZLkEX66ui0wAJj0DBqlCf 0mPvEqHxyvKwmL7lIlNKS6z53zooGT2pmrXwxe53/6YtVOxVolzwKYfS7HOt4bxN chEO2Q0cTkx9XqNppozwt4ioHHd5Tr6ePocXVCONwAFx2aCrB5294iQysN9RrQog vBNe1M+ALcUd0gp6D485G0vFSYWEms/jFZG3n1xs5arp82HVIUEeVt/SIPsnV78= =2QBD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
[sword-devel] BREW Development?
I've recently switched cellphone carriers, and as a result of various factors, I'm now using a dumb phone that does not support Java apps, but only BREW. (Metro is giving away a dumb phone when you buy any phone, and my wife got the nice one.) While investigating what BREW means, I run into what (at first glance) appears to be recent change in BREW development licensing at Qualcomm to something close to or really open source and free to release in an unencumbered way. However, BREW on my phone is still server side controlled. I've witnessed my phone 'register apps' at least 3 times since I got it on Saturday. So I don't know If I'll need the Carrier's (METROPCS) involvement to release a bible on it or not. Since some 40-60% of newer 'dumb' phones support BREW, and about half of those don't support Java, is there any ongoing development to port Go-Bible or create a similar app for it? Is there a known roadblock that prevents releasing a Bible app on BREW? I'm planning to work toward this end, and would rather be involved in an existing project than duplicating effort. ___ 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?
Von: Mike Hart just_mik...@yahoo.com I'm planning to work toward this end, and would rather be involved in an existing project than duplicating effort. I think this is the first time that I have heard of this and I am pretty linked in to what is happening on GoBible. So, if you start something, great! I am pretty sure there will not have been much of a previous effort Kind regards Peter -- GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ 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?
Some long time ago, I posted something about BREW in the Current Projects page in our wiki, though it was subsequently deleted by an over-zealous Osk. Check the history of the page. http://crosswire.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Current_Projectsaction=history http://crosswire.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Current_Projectsaction=history David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3458378.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] BREW Development?
I admit, I don't see any value to all of the space wasted to say we don't support this platform, we don't have any content on this topic in the wiki yet, or here's some format that is irrelevant to Sword. It just makes it more difficult to find relevant content that actually has been written. --Chris On 4/18/11 11:47 AM, David Haslam wrote: Some long time ago, I posted something about BREW in the Current Projects page in our wiki, though it was subsequently deleted by an over-zealous Osk. Check the history of the page. http://crosswire.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Current_Projectsaction=history http://crosswire.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Current_Projectsaction=history David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/BREW-Development-tp3457603p3458378.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 ___ 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
