On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Daniel Hughes wrote:
> OK guys so that bottom line is that if I want to use libsword I must add a
> GPL2 licence, so that I licence my code under both GPL2 and GPL3.
>
> I would be interested in know what it is in GPL3 that sword contributors are
> unhappy about. I
OK can understand the worry about FSF changing the terms of the licence in
the future to something you are not happy with.
I will therefore licence my code under GPL2. Thanks for taking the time to
explain your position to me.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Chris Little wrote:
On 08/12/2012 05:51 PM, Daniel Hughes wrote:
OK here is the issue for me. My application (Wide Margin) is GPL 3. It
has been all it's life. I want to use libsword. But libsword is GPL2.
The license employed by The SWORD Project is presented in the LICENSE
file in the root of the source tree. M
OK guys so that bottom line is that if I want to use libsword I must add a
GPL2 licence, so that I licence my code under both GPL2 and GPL3.
I would be interested in know what it is in GPL3 that sword contributors
are unhappy about. It still ensures that commercial entities cannot take
from us our
This is from the FSF in 2010
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement/
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Nic Carter wrote:
> I'm interested in hearing how exactly it is incompatible... It originally
> was (in 2008 when you weren't able to make any iOS source co
I'm interested in hearing how exactly it is incompatible... It originally was
(in 2008 when you weren't able to make any iOS source code publicly available,
a rather unfortunate decision which has since been overturned!) but it is now
my understanding that that is no longer the case & hence we s
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Daniel Hughes wrote:
> OK here is the issue for me. My application (Wide Margin) is GPL 3. It has
> been all it's life. I want to use libsword. But libsword is GPL2.
>
> GPL 3 is a later version of GPL 2. The FSF want people to use GPL 3.
That is their recommendat
To further complicate things, how is PocketSword available in the the apple
app store when the app store terms of service are incompatible with the GPL?
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Hughes wrote:
> OK here is the issue for me. My application (Wide Margin) is GPL 3. It has
> been all
OK here is the issue for me. My application (Wide Margin) is GPL 3. It has
been all it's life. I want to use libsword. But libsword is GPL2.
GPL 3 is a later version of GPL 2. The FSF want people to use GPL 3.
What would it take for the sword project to re-licence to: GPL 2 or later.
I'm sure tha
There is a lot of confusion about.
But it is actually very simple.
A complete programme binary incorporating libsword (or other GPL2 code)
requires to be GPL2, i.e. full sources need to be released etc etc etc.
The "compatible" is here very limited as essentially only a copyleft
license will do.
More specifically is the GPL FAQ page, which states the matter very succinctly.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
Yes. The application "has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license".
--Greg
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 201
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 01:11 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I see the distinction. For GPLv2 software A to be used by or
>>> incorporated in some other software B, GPLv2 must
On 08/12/2012 01:11 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little wrote:
I'm not sure I see the distinction. For GPLv2 software A to be used by or
incorporated in some other software B, GPLv2 must be compatible with
software B's license. The set of licenses that GPLv2 i
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the distinction. For GPLv2 software A to be used by or
> incorporated in some other software B, GPLv2 must be compatible with
> software B's license. The set of licenses that GPLv2 is compatible with
> consists of exactly an
Received an reply from CDearth today:
---
Hi Peter,
My apologies for the delayed reply. Its taken few days to get answers
because of the holiday weekend.
To answer your questions:
1. We have not altered the application so there is no additional source
code to release.
2. Per your req
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:50 AM, peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You will appreciate that your obligations according the GPL are a bit more.
>>
>> 1) If you rebrand the software (which you appear to have done) you have
>> effectively altered its sources and must adve
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:50 AM, peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You will appreciate that your obligations according the GPL are a bit more.
>
> 1) If you rebrand the software (which you appear to have done) you have
> effectively altered its sources and must advertise this fact + provide
>
Hi,
You will appreciate that your obligations according the GPL are a bit more.
1) If you rebrand the software (which you appear to have done) you have
effectively altered its sources and must advertise this fact + provide
the altered sources.
2) If you distribute the software you must be clear t
On Jan 26, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Jason Galyon wrote:
> DM Smith wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Jason Galyon wrote:
>>
>>
>>> am I forced to
>>> use GPL for both the server and the client or would this just be the
>>> server since it interfaces directly with a sword based lib/app?
>>>
>>
>> On
DM Smith wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Jason Galyon wrote:
>
>
>> am I forced to
>> use GPL for both the server and the client or would this just be the
>> server since it interfaces directly with a sword based lib/app?
>>
>
> Only the server for the reason you stated. This is a fun
On Jan 26, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Jason Galyon wrote:
> am I forced to
> use GPL for both the server and the client or would this just be the
> server since it interfaces directly with a sword based lib/app?
Only the server for the reason you stated. This is a fundamental
loophole/flaw in the GPL.
On Jan 26, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Jason Galyon wrote:
>
> This is full of angst and ignorance. I would expect that of a child
> but
> not a Christian. If you can not develop a frontend (for example) in
> whatever OSI approved license you choose then I believe that is one of
> the many reasons why
Thank you for being a voice of reason and self control.
There are valid issues for the protecting of work and the desire to
allow for wide dissemination that get burried under pagan trivia and
self serving agendas and rage.
My concern is that the portions I write not be viral. I am not really
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Jason Galyon wrote:
>
>
>> On that subject
>>
>> Free as in Freedom
>>
>> Is Sword available under a dual license btw? This probably has already
>> been answered but I am failing to find it currently.
>>
>> Some believe the GPL to be restrictive and
Chris Little wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Jason Galyon wrote:
>
>
>> On that subject
>>
>> Free as in Freedom
>>
>> Is Sword available under a dual license btw? This probably has
>> already
>> been answered but I am failing to find it currently.
>>
>
> Sword and all works based
On Jan 26, 2008, at 8:53 AM, DM Smith wrote:
> The upshot is that it may not be possible
> to use Sword with any other third party code that is open source.
This is worded badly. I only mean to point out that there are some
licenses that are not compatible and third party code licensed under
On Jan 26, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Chris Little wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Jason Galyon wrote:
>
>> On that subject
>>
>> Free as in Freedom
>>
>> Is Sword available under a dual license btw? This probably has
>> already
>> been answered but I am failing to find it currently.
>
> Sword and
On Jan 25, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Jason Galyon wrote:
> On that subject
>
> Free as in Freedom
>
> Is Sword available under a dual license btw? This probably has
> already
> been answered but I am failing to find it currently.
Sword and all works based on it, including all frontends, are licensed
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Jason Galyon wrote:
> On that subject
>
> Free as in Freedom
>
> Is Sword available under a dual license btw? This probably has already
> been answered but I am failing to find it currently.
>
> Some believe the GPL to be restrictive and freedom destroying. What
> about othe
On that subject
Free as in Freedom
Is Sword available under a dual license btw? This probably has already
been answered but I am failing to find it currently.
Some believe the GPL to be restrictive and freedom destroying. What
about other open source licenses like the Python license for exam
On 17/07/07, Troy A. Griffitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, because we have to answer the support emails, e.g. "I purchases your
> software and it doesn't work" from many unfortunate ThinkAll consumers.
> Though I agree with Chris that we likely only want to add restrictions to
> BibleCS if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?
It is also called the 10-40 Windows.
It refers to the countries that lie between 10 and 40 north, and from
roughly the Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean. These countries tend
On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IOW, you are free to distribute it via CD to third parties. (This is
how it is distributed in a dozen countries in the 10-40 belt.)
Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?
10 & 40 refer to l
jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IOW, you are free to distribute it via CD to third parties. (This is
> how it is distributed in a dozen countries in the 10-40 belt.)
Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?
> I suspect that Stallman would be more than happy about suing licence
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>"GPL v2 or later" is good as it allows widest use.
>Both got very excited when they saw the freedom the GPL offered them -
it was news to them that such a licence even existed
a) There are a slew of similar licences. The dow
I come late to this issue and as I am not one of the programmers I think I have
probably little right to a say on the matter - I will say it anyway.
"GPL v2 or later" is good as it allows widest use.
Any restrictions on the GPL though - regarding rebranding, redistribution
notification or furth
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 11:22, DM Smith wrote:
> nterestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
> license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
> install BT or GS via an RPM, I'm not presented with the license.
> According to the GPL, it then needs to be av
DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
> license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
> install BT or GS via an RPM, I'm not presented with the license.
> According to the GPL, it then needs to be availabl
I just re-read v3 and v2. Ouch, my head hurts. Some of v3, like section
3 just don't make any sense to me. I'm glad I am not a lawyer!
Interestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
install BT or GS via an
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, DM Smith wrote:
> We should not "upgrade" the license unless we are solving a problem
> or need. We have lots of other things to work on.
I agree.
>
> The licenses should be compared to see what the differences are and
> whether it contributes anything. I read v3 a while back
My opinion (and I may be wrong on any of this).
We should not "upgrade" the license unless we are solving a problem
or need. We have lots of other things to work on.
The licenses should be compared to see what the differences are and
whether it contributes anything. I read v3 a while back (lo
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> If BibleCS and BibleDesktop disappeared people could just start
> using other programs, like e-sword.
People might not even notice that they had disappeared from
Windows. There are a plethora of free (gratis) Bible Study
programs, and almost as many commercially distribute
> This becomes even more important if Linux user base grows in the third
> world. Just like with paper Bibles, we are blessed with abundancy, but
> there are millions of persons who can't afford even one. We are declined
> to think about NIV etc. as very important and I also think they are -
> but
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
>
>
> Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> > Any of us don't actually loose anything even if someone sells our
> > software illegally. Why should we then be bitter when we know that he is
> > responsible in front of God the Judge?
>
> I'm not looking to get a cut of the
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Jeremy Erickson wrote:
> That means that BibleTime 2 on Windows with such a Sword library would be
> illegal, because BibleTime 2 will link with Qt 4, which is available only
> under the GPL on some platforms (unless we wanted to fork out lots of cash
> for a commercial license
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> Any of us don't actually loose anything even if someone sells our
> software illegally. Why should we then be bitter when we know that he is
> responsible in front of God the Judge?
I'm not looking to get a cut of the profits for myself or Troy or
CrossWire or anything l
Jonathon,
Yes, you are correct. If your organization decides to contribute code to
CrossWire, you grant CrossWire full ownership rights to the contribution.
This effectively lets CrossWire do whatever they want with it. If they
decide to grant, say, the United Bible Societies permission to use
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> scares you, remember that you don't give up your ownership of your own code,
> you merely give CrossWire full ownership priviledges, as well.
Can I get a clarification here.
If an organization contributes code to Crosswire, Crosswire
can use it under the GPL 2.0 (or 3.
IANAL, but my understanding is that the GPLv2 only allows code under the GPLv2
(or a license such as BSD/MIT which permits everyhing the GPL does) to be
linked with GPL'd code. The GPLv3 has wording in section 7 to explicitly
allow linking from MIT/BSD/etc., as well as allowing certain restrict
Chris Little wrote:
> some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
> our software that we've seen in the past:
a) Have those commercial abusers violated the GNU GPL.
If so, what action was taken against them?
b) The advantage of GPL 3.0, is that it more clearly
deli
Sorry for all the typos and 'top-posting', but I'm at work so this will also
be a quick comment.
1) I had thought I removed all the 'or later versions' from all the files a
few years back, as it seemed too open-ended.
2) Jason Galyon pointed out the possibility of companies asking us for a
specia
Well, because we have to answer the support emails, e.g. "I purchases your
software and it doesn't work" from many unfortunate ThinkAll consumers.
Though I agree with Chris that we likely only want to add restrictions to
BibleCS if do decide to go that route.
Eeli Kaikkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
> Whether the license would still result in free software would depend on
> the actual license terms. Of the three examples I listed, only the
> second, if written as an explicit prohibition on the "freedom" to embed
> adware, would result in non-free softwa
jhphx wrote:
> Can you include work released under 2 or 3 that was licensed without the
> additional restrictions in a work that has the additional restrictions.
> I didn't think that kind of thing was allowed. Is that a "compatible"
> license? It has been a long time since I have looked at thi
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
>> Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
>> some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
>> our software that we've seen in the past: restrictions against changing
>> the
Chris Little wrote:
> Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
> some additional restrictions ...
Can you include work released under 2 or 3 that was licensed without the
additional restrictions in a work that has the additional restrictions.
I didn't think that ki
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
> Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
> some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
> our software that we've seen in the past: restrictions against changing
> the software title to hide its ide
It's probably time we (or maybe just Troy) decided how we feel about
GPL3. The final version does seem to have addressed the more onerous
issues of the drafts and there are enough significant GPL2 projects
changing over to GPL3 that I would feel comfortable with Sword doing
likewise.
I think w
I think generally we're of the opinion that it would be best if Sword
remained free software--and that includes both the library and the
frontends, as well as some of the Sword-related tools.
We want our software to be used, both by developers and end-users. But
we don't want our years of work
keith preston wrote:
> Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was
> licensed under the GPL license. Is there a specific purpose for being
> specifically GPL? To me if would be benifical for the library to be
> LGPL or a less restrictive license. I mean the purpose of
There is always the possibility of dual licensing. A company could
obtain special permission to use a less restrictive license given that
certain requirements are met.
I personally have long been a supporter of the "ransom" model. When a
certain amount of time or income has been met the sourc
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, keith preston wrote:
> Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was licensed
> under the GPL license.
Personally I also like less restrictive licencies. However, I understand
that there are different situations which call different licencies.
If Sword wer
Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was licensed
under the GPL license. Is there a specific purpose for being specifically
GPL? To me if would be benifical for the library to be LGPL or a less
restrictive license. I mean the purpose of the code is to make the bible
av
Sword library source code has some licencing issues. Different files
have different licence statements. They should be reviewed and
corrected.
The problem is mostly theoretical because nobody really cares - the
library is under GPL and that's that. But there may arise issues later
with GPL 3. Some
On 1/17/06, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI,
> I just read that a draft of GPL 3.0 has been released. The target date
> for the final is March 2007. The significant differences appear to be
> changing the language to make it less American legalese, to add
> provisions that GPL software ca
FYI,
I just read that a draft of GPL 3.0 has been released. The target date
for the final is March 2007. The significant differences appear to be
changing the language to make it less American legalese, to add
provisions that GPL software cannot be used for DRM and to add
provisions regarding
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:46, Chris Little wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:26, Chris Little wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
LGPL will achieve this directly. Wrapping a CLI program ("engine")
with a proprietary GUI will also achieve
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:26, Chris Little wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
> >> LGPL will achieve this directly. Wrapping a CLI program ("engine") with a
> >> proprietary GUI will also achieve this with fully GPLed software.
>
> > I think y
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:26, Chris Little wrote:
> You can look back through our archives for discussions of why
> LGPL is just the world's stupidest license because vagueries of GPL allow
> any dynamic linking to not violate the license, making GPL == LGPL.
Fine, I have no real problem with using e
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:26, Chris Little wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
>> LGPL will achieve this directly. Wrapping a CLI program ("engine") with a
>> proprietary GUI will also achieve this with fully GPLed software.
> I think you missed the point. We can't put something under LG
70 matches
Mail list logo
