[sword-devel] iPhone NDA dropped
dmsmith555 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 22 04:13:39 MST 2008
On Oct 22, 2008, at 1:29 AM, Nathan Youngman wrote:
> So what you're saying is the entire work would need to be distributed
> with GPL (2 or 3).
No, not GPLv3, as that is incompatible with v2. The only way that
would be true is if we relicensed our code to have the v2 or later
clause. We've discussed that on the list already and I won't rehash it
here, except to say we have decided against it.
> Though it could link in, say an MIT licensed Regex library.
> Whether a front-end is derived or merely attached is debatable... but
> I don't feel like debating.
> Though not entirely relevant to Sword, the thing I find the most
> distasteful is when various open source licenses don't get along. In
> that way, I prefer the simple non-copyleft licenses, not so much
> because they allow proprietary use, but because people don't end up
> rewriting one open source thing, just to combine it with another open
> source thing of a differing license.
When it comes to SWORD, I found that CrossWire has a policy that the
linked libraries are not GPL. This allows for CrossWire to create
derivative works for others, like Bible institutes and societies,
under different licensing than the GPL.
> - nathan
> On 21-Oct-08, at 9:35 PM, Chris Little wrote:
>> No. This is absolutely incorrect.
>> We get discussions about what the terms of the GPL are or why we
>> change the license once or twice a year, so feel free to dig up one
>> the old discussions or confirm this from a third party, such as the
>> if you like.
>> Sword is licensed under the GPLv2 and only under that version of that
>> license. The GPL states that any derived works must give the same
>> license terms as those terms under which the original work was
>> It is not permitted to give more/fewer/different rights than exactly
>> that set contained within GPLv2. So any derived work based on GPLv2
>> must be GPLv2. Since frontends are derived works, "all frontends
>> MUST be
>> GPLv2 licensed."
>> The term "GPL compatible" does not mean that you can integrate GPL
>> GPL compatible code and license it under a (non-GPL) GPL compatible
>> license. It means that you can integrate GPL and GPL compatible code
>> license it under the GPL (only).
> Nathan Youngman
> Web: http://www.nathany.com
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel