[sword-devel] Still more about licencing

[Chris Little]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Derek Neighbors wrote:

> Lynn Allan wrote:
> | Hello Ka-shu Wong,
> |
> | Thanks so much for writing. I believe I actually may understand those
> issues
> | that apply to the proposed LcdBible and the InVerse Scripture memorization
> | freeware. You are a wizard of clarity. I hope you are correct.
> |
> | Would someone please correct any fallacies on my part with the following
> | statements regarding GPL and The SWORD Project's license:
> |
> | * There can be two or more versions of the LcdBible software.
> 
> Yes.  This is called Dual Licesncing.  Mozilla, OpenOffice/Star Office,
> MySQL and other large projects do this.  It is sticky, nasty and a
> hornet's nest I wouldnt want to manage, but it is certainly do able.

Er.  Dual licensing refers to two licenses, either of which may apply to a 
single piece of software, where the licensee gets to choose the license.  
In some cases, as with Perl, you get the option and don't even have to 
specify which license you pick.  All of the programs Derek lists here are 
dual licensed, indeed.

However, what Lynn is describing is not a single piece of software, but 
two pieces of software.  Picking up from Ka-shu Wong's lead:

If Lynn writes LcdBible and it does not involve Sword or link to Sword's 
libraries at all, he can license LcdBible according to any license he 
wants: proprietary, GPL, BSD, MPL, public domain, etc.  And, for that 
matter, he can dual license this work as he sees fit.

Now, if Lynn decides he wants to interface with the Sword library, he has 
the option of forking his own development.  Fork 1, which we'll call just 
LcdBible, can still be released under any license, provided it still 
contains no GPL code and still does not link to any GPL code.  Fork 2, 
which we'll call LcdBible-Sword, includes the interface to Sword and must 
now be licensed under the GPL, exclusively.

Changes may still be made, in parallel, to both forks, but the original 
LcdBible, licensed under something other than GPL can never incorporate 
or link to GPL code.

> Again if the modules/texts/*.* are under a license other the GPL (which
> for some reason I am thinking is the case), then there would be nothing
> from precluding you to write your own program to access them.

Indeed, the texts as they currently stand are in three categories:
1) Public domain
2) Free non-commercial use
3) Free use with the Sword Project

Accessing texts in categories 1 & 2 would be no problem (aside from 
annoying us).  But accessing texts in category 3 would be a license 
violation on the user's part.

--Chris