[jsword-devel] Alkitab Bible Study 0.9 released

[Peter von Kaehne]

Ok I am not a lawyer either, but I think I got a clear enough
understanding of the matter.

1) Your code is your code. You can do and licence it as you like as long
as it is compatible with any other code you combine it with. And even
then you can dual/triple licence it etc etc.

2) GPL code inside a programme distributed as a unity (which Alkitab is)
trumps for the overall programme. And if it can not trump then there is
a problem as the bits might not be compatible, licensing wise.

So my suggestion would be that you put a PD declaration onto each
individual source file of your front end, but use an overall licence
text as GPL (stating that several sub files are under different licences
or public domain.

Doing it this way should keep even Stallman happy. It would clarify that
you as a recipient can do two things:

1) You can take the whole programme as it stands and distribute/alter it
as you like as long as you keep publishing the source code and generally
fulfil GPL requirements

2) You can rip the source code apart and pick out only the bits
published under PD and do with those bits as you like + redistribute
those bits under any new licence chosen.

Hope this is clear enough.

Peter

Tonny Kohar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Ben Morgan <benpmorgan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Public domain, however, is not a license - it is releasing all claims to
>> copyright on the code. This means anyone can do whatever they like with it.
>>
> 
> It is interesting "Public Domain is not a license", I didn't know
> that. But my intentions is correct, to release all claims to the code
> and other can do whatever they like with it.
> 
> So what do you think I should put on the wording on the website and
> the program license text. Currently it is stated as Public Domain
> license in regards of my intention (see above)
> 
> Note: I am not a lawyer and legal/license is not my expertise area.
> 
> Cheers
> Tonny Kohar