[sword-devel] Closed source exploitation of open source works (a GPL loophole)

[Chris Marsh]

Chris,
I don't have acess to CVS (work Network has this sort of thing blocked!).
Are you able to e-mail the ACtiveX control and any associated files/docs etc
to me?  This is exactly what I was after!  BTW, anything I do (in VB) will
be as Open Source as possible!

Thanks,


Chris Marsh
Analyst Programmer
Hansen Corporation
Ph: (03) 9843 8438


> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Little [mailto:chrislit@chiasma.org]
> >Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2001 7:27
> >To: SWORD Devel List
> >Subject: [sword-devel] Closed source exploitation of open 
> >source works
> >(a GPL loophole)
> >
> >
> >I've been working on the Windows dll issue for a while now.  
> >It looks like a
> >dll is not possible because of VC++'s handling of STL in the 
> >resulting dll.
> >A statically linkable library is possible, has been built, 
> >and works well.
> >I have diatheke compiled and running (linked to the static library).
> >
> >From there I built an ActiveX control with basically the 
> >same functionality
> >as diatheke (basic queries & searches) called 
> >ActiveDiatheke.  This should
> >give VB & Delphi programmers the ability to do most of what 
> >they would want.
> >
> >It might be a bit slower than most front ends, but you could use
> >ActiveDiatheke to build a front end with most of the same 
> >capabilities as
> >BibleCS, GnomeSword, BibleTime or iraeneus.  The big 
> >difference would be
> >that the author of such a program would have no need to 
> >release his work
> >under GPL because it is not modifying or even statically 
> >linking Sword
> >derived code.
> >
> >So . . .
> >
> >What's our answer to this loophole in the GPL?  Do we find a more
> >restrictive license than GPL under which to release 
> >ActiveDiatheke (and
> >probably Sword in general since anyone could make a similar 
> >component and
> >license under GPL, allowing close source use)?  We've 
> >considered switching
> >to LGPL, so should we just ignore this issue since it meshes 
> >just fine with
> >the intent behind LGPL.  Should we allow ActiveDiatheke (and 
> >similar) to go
> >under GPL and serve as a the only means for closed source 
> >use rather than
> >putting Sword under LGPL?  Should I just pretend I didn't 
> >write it and
> >delete it from my hard drive so that we don't have to deal 
> >with the issue at
> >all? :)
> >
> >--Chris Little
> >