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 <chris...@crosswire.org>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. Most if not all of the source files > identify themselves as being GPLv2 licensed. It was never a secret that > Sword is GPLv2. > > We would certainly encourage adoption of Sword in additional Bible > software, but the same license and rules apply to GPLv3-licensed open > source projects as apply to closed source software that might want to > incorporate Sword. Using Sword requires adoption of GPLv2. > > Peter's description of the options available to front-end authors was > precisely correct. If you want to incorporate Sword, you'll have to adopt > GPLv2. You can also license your code under other licenses, excluding those > parts that actually interface with Sword. So you can license your work as > 'version 2 or later', which would include 3, excluding those parts that > specifically interface Sword. Binaries that include the Sword-interface > code would obligatorily be GPLv2. If you build a binary without the > Sword-interface code, such as your current non-Sword-interfacing builds, it > can be under some other license, such as GPLv3. > > > GPL 3 is a later version of GPL 2. The FSF want people to use GPL 3. >> > > CrossWire is not the FSF. The terms of GPLv2 are agreeable to us, and > allowing "version 2 or later" licensing would fundamentally permit the FSF > to relicense Sword in the future. I wouldn't trust the FSF to arbitrarily > change the terms of the GPL in version 4 or 5 or 25. > > > What would it take for the sword project to re-licence to: GPL 2 or >> later. I'm sure that the libsword contributors would have no problem >> with allowing GPL 3 applications use the library. >> >> How many contributors do you have, how hard would it be for you to >> contact them and get permission for this licence change. Otherwise you >> are going to be preventing more and more libraries who are following >> FSF recommendations and licencing as GPL3. >> > > I expect we'll follow Linux's lead. When Linux goes GPLv3, so will Sword. > > > Xiphos uses GPL2 or later. This would make Xiphos non-compliant. >> >> Bible time uses GPL2 but contains this text: >> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by >> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or >> (at your option) any later version. >> >> This would make BibleTime also non-compliant >> >> Looks like you guys have a bit of a problem on your hands. What are you >> planning to do about it? >> > > Xiphos & BibleTime can be GPLv2 or later, but only to the extent that > their code can be dis-interfaced from Sword. Those applications could, for > example, have all Sword-ness removed and be desktop interfaces to the > Biblia.com API, and the result could be GPLv3 (or 4 or 5 ...). (I don't > know about licensing terms on the Biblia.com API, but from the technical & > Xiphos/BibleTime-licensing perspective this is accurate.) > > --Chris > > > ______________________________**_________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/**mailman/listinfo/sword-devel<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