[sword-devel] Closed source exploitation of open source works
(a GPL loophole)
Fri, 11 May 2001 10:50:47 +1000
I don't have acess to CVS (work Network has this sort of thing blocked!).
Are you able to e-mail the ACtiveX control and any associated files/docs etc
to me? This is exactly what I was after! BTW, anything I do (in VB) will
be as Open Source as possible!
Ph: (03) 9843 8438
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Little [mailto:email@example.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2001 7:27
> >To: SWORD Devel List
> >Subject: [sword-devel] Closed source exploitation of open
> >source works
> >(a GPL loophole)
> >I've been working on the Windows dll issue for a while now.
> >It looks like a
> >dll is not possible because of VC++'s handling of STL in the
> >resulting dll.
> >A statically linkable library is possible, has been built,
> >and works well.
> >I have diatheke compiled and running (linked to the static library).
> >From there I built an ActiveX control with basically the
> >same functionality
> >as diatheke (basic queries & searches) called
> >ActiveDiatheke. This should
> >give VB & Delphi programmers the ability to do most of what
> >they would want.
> >It might be a bit slower than most front ends, but you could use
> >ActiveDiatheke to build a front end with most of the same
> >capabilities as
> >BibleCS, GnomeSword, BibleTime or iraeneus. The big
> >difference would be
> >that the author of such a program would have no need to
> >release his work
> >under GPL because it is not modifying or even statically
> >linking Sword
> >derived code.
> >So . . .
> >What's our answer to this loophole in the GPL? Do we find a more
> >restrictive license than GPL under which to release
> >ActiveDiatheke (and
> >probably Sword in general since anyone could make a similar
> >component and
> >license under GPL, allowing close source use)? We've
> >considered switching
> >to LGPL, so should we just ignore this issue since it meshes
> >just fine with
> >the intent behind LGPL. Should we allow ActiveDiatheke (and
> >similar) to go
> >under GPL and serve as a the only means for closed source
> >use rather than
> >putting Sword under LGPL? Should I just pretend I didn't
> >write it and
> >delete it from my hard drive so that we don't have to deal
> >with the issue at
> >all? :)
> >--Chris Little