[sword-devel] Wiki Misrepresentation
benpmorgan at gmail.com
Mon Aug 3 17:00:38 MST 2009
Yes, we have been through this before.
The answer we have got from the FSF is that GPL compatible licenses are OK
for *all* code of frontends using the library, but of course the whole thing
has to operate under the GPLv2 (so you can't get round GPL restrictions by
using a compatible license on the frontend).
Just out of curiosity, what GPLv2 only non-crosswire code is there? I can't
see any with a quick look.
in the valley of decision!
For the day of the LORD is near
in the valley of decision.
Giôên 3:14 (ESV)
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Famile von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
> We have been on teh mailing list through this discussion already a few
> dozen of times.
> If you write GUI code for _a_ bible programme and then go looking for a
> suitable backend, + decide to go for libsword your initial independent
> GUI code may be under any licence you see fit as long as it is GPL
> compatible, your glue code must be GPL and the overall application must
> be GPL. The best example within the fold of sword related programmes is
> LCD Bible. The guy who wrote it republished his GUI with a couple of
> other backends and some of these are not GPL but closed source. His
> originl fronend code may be under whatever license, but he needed to
> relicence everything as GPL prior to publishing.
> If you start out with libsword and build your code upon that then you
> start out under GPL and continue. If you end up incorporating
> pre-existing code from something else, then this (as above) may be under
> any other GPL compatible license and the overall final product will be
> again GPL.
> There are a few outlying cases which have been raised a few times and a
> couple of people suggested ingenuous sever/client constructions which
> they felt would allow them to bypass the overall GPL but thgese are the
> exceptions (which might not even apply if you set a lawyer onto it.
> The main confusing aspect is "GPL compatible". This can mean two things
> a) a license which is free enough to allow code under it be incorporated
> into GPL code.
> b) a license which states the same as the GPL but uses other words.
> Latter practically does not exist, but lingers in people's minds and
> confuses the issues. Former are BSD amd MIT style free licenses or
> indeed public domain code. The "compatibility" is a one way street. I
> can incorporate BSD/MIT/PD code into my GPL programme but I can not
> incorporate GPL code into my BSD programme without licensing the lot as
> a GPL programme.
> With regard to GPL 2 vs 3 - again this has been raised a few times. The
> FSF is pushing GPL 3, but for us this is no option as some of the code
> we use is GPL vs 2 only. GPL v2 and v3 are not compatible.
> yours in him
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel