[sword-devel] Bereans and Sword and GPL vs PD

[Chris Little]

Lynn Allan wrote:

> <Please ignore if you have already had more than enough questions from this
> scribbler re GPL ... PLEASE. Step.Away.From.The.Keyboard ...
> There.Is.Nothing.Here.To.See :-)>
> 
> Before the scars of the recent GPL thread have faded from memory, it would
> perhaps be appropriate to discuss the underlying issue.

I'm not sure what you hope to gain by digging into this again.  Asking 
once just indicates unfamiliarity.  Asking twice indicates we lacked 
clarity in our answer.  Asking three+ times really does force me to 
start examining your motives.

In the simplest terms:
1) We cannot legally change our license right now.  We use code owned by 
the Free Software Foundation that is GPL licensed.  Changing the 
licenses is not an option.

2) We would not change our license.  You've apparently got problems with 
the GPL.  I encourage you to get over them, and, if you really can't, to 
move on.  We've had contributions from possibly over a hundred 
developers over the years, who contributed their code and other efforts 
to the SWORD Project with the understanding that it was GPL and the 
understanding that it would remain free.  To change the license now 
would violate the trust of those developers.  It would be plainly unethical.

3) We don't want to change our license.  There's no good reason.  It 
ain't broke.  It encourages development.  It drives poachers away (well, 
sometimes).

> To me, it seems clear that something very close to Public Domain is
> obviously preferred.

"To me" is important here.  Many of us see that PD is obviously a bad idea.

You earlier mentioned that you think the GPL is "anti-intellectual".  It 
must have been my medication talking when I responded to this with a 
literal interpretation.  I assume you meant anti-"intellectual 
property", referring to that all-encompassing boogeyman.

GPL is not anti-"IP".  It's just the opposite.  It preseves IP value.

PD is anti-"IP".  It destroys an idea's economic value (but certainly 
not its intellectual value) by making it free to all.  And what's more, 
it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! (disclaimer: PD is only unconstitutional if you 
reside within the twisted confines of Darl McBride's mind.)

 > I state this as a relatively new Christian with less
> than 100 hours "invested" in sword contributions. From the perspective of
> what would be most advantegeous to the LcdBible and the InVerse Scripture
> memorization freeware, I have a vested interest in a sword license that:
> * allows free, unrestricted, and ethical access to PD and freeware
> ./modules/texts
> * allows restricted and ethical access to restricted ./modules/texts
> * using sword-api or not using sword-api.

Let me ask, if I may, since this question has never been brought up, 
much less addressed:
What is it, precisely, that you wish to do with LcdBible or InVerse that 
prohibits you from adopting the GPL license yourself?

I hope the answer to this question simply raises a misconception of some 
aspect of the GPL that we can quickly dispell and get on with our lives. 
  We've been working on Sword for years and years now and have never 
come upon an instance where we were not able to do something that we 
wanted to as a result of restrictions in our license.  So what, really, 
is the problem?

> Matt 10:6-10 WEB
> 6 Rather, go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
> 7 As you go, preach, saying, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!'
> 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. Freely you
> received, so freely give.
> 9 Don't take any gold, nor silver, nor brass in your money belts.
> 10 Take no bag for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff:
> for the laborer is worthy of his food.

Last I checked, Sword was avilable for free download.  Sword is also 
available on CD for the cost of CD duplication and postage.  And I'll 
admit that I haven't contributed much code lately, but if everyone else 
is getting paid for their work here, I feel pretty cheated--not to 
mention upset at being left out of the loop.

I guess I don't see how it applies to the GPL.  Free (as in beer/gratis) 
is pretty much encoded in the GPL, or at least is an inevitable option. 
  That's the kind of free that Jesus is talking about here.  (Now, it 
just happens that free (as in speech/libre) is also encoded in the GPL, 
but that's not forbidden here.  I'm pretty sure God isn't against 
freedom (as in speech/libre)--not to be confused with license (sense 3 
at m-w.com).)

This passage does suggest to me that commercial Bible software 
publishers are clearly evil.  You really should expend your efforts 
convincing them to quit selling software.  They're obviously breaking 
the commandment of Matt 10:6-10.  (Don't bother.  They'll rightly point 
you at 1Cor 9:8-11, which shows that they're not evil for selling 
software, and they'll send you on your way.)

> Philippians 1:12-18
> 12 Now I desire to have you know, brothers, that the things which happened
> to me have turned out rather to the progress of the gospel;
> 13 so that it became evident to the whole praetorian guard, and to all the
> rest, that my bonds are in Christ;
> 14 and that most of the brothers in the Lord, being confident through my
> bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.
> 15 Some indeed preach Christ even out of envy and strife, and some also out
> of good will.
> 16 The former insincerly preach Christ from selfish ambition, thinking that
> they add affliction to my chains;
> 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense
> of the gospel.
> 18 What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in
> truth, Christ is proclaimed. I rejoice in this, yes, and will rejoice.

Right.  Let me describe a scenario (or flip back some emails to the last 
time I used these words):

Suppose we released Sword under BSD, with source code.  Now suppose that 
VerseMonger software decides they want to use our software as a base for 
their new product UltraVerseMonger2000.  They take our stuff, add 
proprietary code to allow it to read enciphered Bibles and a search 
mechanism that will search every Bible in under a second, and sell it. 
Then never release that additional code.  They do a couple releases, 
then go out of business and disappear, their code disappearing with 
them.  Meanwhile, you've been developing our fork, adding a few features 
that never appeared in UltraVerseMonger2000, which we could have added 
if we had access to their code.  And none of their features could ever 
be added to our code because it wouldn't be economically beneficial to them.

Point one: VerseMonger's work profited Christ while they were in 
business, but now they're gone and their work can benefit no one else. 
If our code were GPL licensed, so would theirs be, and their code would 
continue to be usable.

Point two: If VerseMonger's code had been available, both projects would 
have benefitted by having more features, and presumably Christ would 
have been proclaimed all the more.  (Sort of a logical leap in that last 
part, I realize, but this whole argument is sort of ridiculous.)

Point three: If VerseMonger is selling their work... see Matt 10:6-10 
discussion.


But, in the end, why we will keep GPL amounts to:
It serves us well.  We like it.  It benefits our ministry.

--Chris