[jsword-devel] Alkitab Bible Study 0.9 released

[Tonny Kohar]

Hi,

Thanks for the suggestion/discussion regarding license issues, it is eye opener.

I will mark all my files header with PD.

/* This work has been placed into the public domain */  is this enough ?

Cheers
Tonny Kohar

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:53 PM, DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I too am not a lawyer. But I think that Tonny has the right spirit.
>
> JSword and Common are LGPL and BibleDesktop is GPL.
>
> This means that executables that use just jsword.jar and/or jsword-
> common.jar can be liberally licensed or put in the PD. Tonny has done
> this.
>
> bibledesktop.jar requires that an executable be licensed as GPL. Tonny
> has done this.
>
> The other jars (e.g. lucene) have their own license. None of them are
> (L)GPL. Turns out that Lucene's Apache license is not compatible with
> (L)GPL v2, but is with v3. Same is true with other Apache code we use.
> Someday, we'll add the "or later" clause to be fully compliant.
>
> Further, Tonny has not obscured the licensing of our code.
>
> I agree that he should mark each of his files as PD. I think the
> suggestion of making the program GPL as a whole is a good one.
>
> The GPL v2 is a distribution license. The heart of it is that complete
> source is made available.
>
> -- DM
>
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jsword-devel mailing list
>> jsword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jsword-devel mailing list
> jsword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel
>



-- 
Citra FX Photo Effects
imagine, design, create ...
http://www.kiyut.com