ity.
>
>
>Blessings.
>
>-Исходное сообщение-
>От: "Jaak Ristioja"
>Отправлено: 25.09.2016 21:56
>Кому: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
>
>Тема: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++
>
>Hello!
>
>Sometime in May th
ut me.
Blessings.
-Исходное сообщение-
От: "Manfred Bergmann"
Отправлено: 03.10.2016 15:08
Кому: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
Тема: Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++
If you want a nice new, clean and convenient API, why don’t you build
t;mailto:j...@ristioja.ee>
> Отправлено: 25.09.2016 21:56
> Кому: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org>
> Тема: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++
>
> Hello!
>
> Sometime in May this year my efforts to improve the Sword library as t
sings.
-Исходное сообщение-
От: "Jaak Ristioja"
Отправлено: 25.09.2016 21:56
Кому: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
Тема: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++
Hello!
Sometime in May this year my efforts to improve the Sword library as the
backend for BibleTime led
On 09/27/2016 03:08 AM, Fiona von Kaehne wrote:
> We try and negotiate as wide permissions as possible. All modules have
> licensing info in their conf file. That information should be sufficient for
> your purposes, no?
>
> In essence all those which are PD or similarly freely licensed are fine
On 2016-09-27, 15:30 GMT, DM Smith wrote:
> Copyrighted; Permission to distribute granted to CrossWire
> then it is specific to CrossWire.
But that means that the biblical module should be always
downloaded from the CrossWire website, not that it could be done
so and it can only be parsed by lib
On 2016-09-27, 13:08 GMT, Fiona von Kaehne wrote:
> We try and negotiate as wide permissions as possible. All
> modules have licensing info in their conf file. That
> information should be sufficient for your purposes, no?
OK, I thought about something like
https://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/c
And even at that point, no copyright will be violated unless someone
attempts to mirror or host format shifted versions of the modules.
On Sep 27, 2016 11:37 AM, "Greg Hellings" wrote:
> Unless and until this fork is unable to read a Sword module format, this
> discussion is moot. The distributi
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>
> On 2016-09-26, 21:10 GMT, DM Smith wrote:
>> A fork of the CrossWire library (SWORD or JSword) may or may
>> not be seen by the copyright holders to be mechanism of
>> distribution and access that they are willing to license their
>> work.
Unless and until this fork is unable to read a Sword module format, this
discussion is moot. The distribution had no bearing on the software that
does the parsing of the file.
On Sep 27, 2016 11:32 AM, "DM Smith" wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>
> On 2016-09-26, 21:10
On 27 Sep 2016 12:52 pm, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Of course, this is yet another example of the complete mess
> about the Biblical modules. Is there somewhere a list of all
> modules with their appropriate licenses under they are
> distributed, or are all of them (except for the three
> I maintai
On 2016-09-27, 11:51 GMT, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
> Hold your words for a bit and have a little patience. Since
> this is all very fresh news to many of you, let it settle
> a bit. The SWORD project also needs some time to reflect and
> decide on the best course of action. Your criticism does not
On 2016-09-26, 21:10 GMT, DM Smith wrote:
> A fork of the CrossWire library (SWORD or JSword) may or may
> not be seen by the copyright holders to be mechanism of
> distribution and access that they are willing to license their
> work. I know of one publisher of a popular module in
> particular
On 27.09.2016 13:28, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On 2016-09-26, 17:14 GMT, Ryan Hiebert wrote:
>> It is certainly possible that there is only room for one
>> library in the "market". If this is the case, and this fork
>> becomes the choice of the market, then it should be apparent
>> that the original d
On 2016-09-26, 17:14 GMT, Ryan Hiebert wrote:
> It is certainly possible that there is only room for one
> library in the "market". If this is the case, and this fork
> becomes the choice of the market, then it should be apparent
> that the original did not make the choices that the market
> ne
Jaak,
Many of our copyrighted modules are licensed only to CrossWire for their
distribution. This has nothing to do with GPL or other software licenses. When
we negotiate for rights we try to be clear that CrossWire's software libraries
(SWORD and JSword) are used by many front-ends on many pla
Hey everyone, maybe it would be a good idea to take a step back and
cool off a bit? The messages are getting angry and somewhat personal.
I'd like to think that no one here is trying to be bad or do anything
wrong.
I think that people disagree with Jaak's decisions and think it's
wrong
Thank you, Troy!
On 26.09.2016 20:29, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> I can foresee a few problems for Bibletime not basing development on
> libsword, one primarily being that the software will need to discern the
> distribution rights of the module repository, if you still plan to point
> Bibletime to
Since a need was felt to create a fork - a fork that accesses the same vast
library of Bible texts and commentaries and supporting materials - it
becomes clear that this vast library is a valued asset, as perceived by the
creator of the fork. A fork could also have been created that starts
producin
Hi Jaak and others,
Karl is right, we haven't had an official release since 24-Dec-2014,
which is way too long (there is a 1.7.5a1.tar.gz bundle out there dated
Aug-2015 but I'd have to talk with Greg to see what that is). This
delay is in part due to my deficiencies in adequately marking for
On 26.09.2016 19:43, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for
> one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this -
> regression and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have
> made this very clear.
> On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
> Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for
> one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this -
> regression and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have
> made
Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for
one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this - regression
and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have made this very
clear.
But, I guess, you are not in a mood to listen to th
On 26.09.2016 10:56, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> We are supporting 32 bit devices and operating systems for the foreseeable
> future. Emails on sword-support confirm that.
I have no problem with Sword doing that. But you can't force Sword++ to
do that, unless of course you get involved and help ou
Jaak,
We are supporting 32 bit devices and operating systems for the foreseeable
future. Emails on sword-support confirm that.
Libsword use is considerably more than Bibletime.
I am not argueing against increased speed and changes in the development model,
I am arguing against careless breaka
On 26.09.2016 00:25, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> Libsword needs to be working for all kinds of devices and in a million
> of unanticipated environments. Now and in future.
Give me a break! I doubt there will be much demand in the near future
for BibleTime to run on less than 64-bit CPUs, for example
On Sun, 2016-09-25 at 17:52 -0400, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> On 09/25/2016 05:25 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> > Changes ... need to be slow, reliable and consensual. And the
> > maintainers need to be slow, reliable and acting in consensus, too.
> > Plodders, more than revolutionaries.
> I want to
On 09/25/2016 05:25 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> Changes ... need to be slow, reliable and consensual. And the
> maintainers need to be slow, reliable and acting in consensus, too.
> Plodders, more than revolutionaries.
I want to see if I've got this straight.
Jaak is being challenged for possib
Libsword needs to be working for all kinds of devices and in a million
of unanticipated environments. Now and in future.
It needs to work for module makers as much as for frontend makeers -
both existing ones and those we have not even thought of yet.
Changes like dropping of utilities (diatheke
On 09/25/2016 03:50 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> the fear that it will kill any upgrades in most Linux distros
There hasn't been a release of the engine in something like 2 years, so
... eh, hardly matters, y'know?
___
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@c
On 25.09.2016 22:50, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On 2016-09-25, 18:54 GMT, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
>> Sometime in May this year my efforts to improve the Sword
>> library as the backend for BibleTime led me to create branch
>> or fork of the Sword codebase, which I eventually called
>> Sword++.
>
> Well,
On 2016-09-25, 18:54 GMT, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
> Sometime in May this year my efforts to improve the Sword
> library as the backend for BibleTime led me to create branch
> or fork of the Sword codebase, which I eventually called
> Sword++.
Well, aside from the fear that it will kill any upgrade
Hello!
Sometime in May this year my efforts to improve the Sword library as the
backend for BibleTime led me to create branch or fork of the Sword
codebase, which I eventually called Sword++. The main goals for this
were to (with respect to BibleTime development) improve the API, build
system and
33 matches
Mail list logo
