[sword-devel] LcdBible alpha 0.60a prototype available

[Chris Little]

Lynn,

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Lynn Allan wrote:
 
> * I have no awareness of what is involved in applying for "front-end status"
> for software such as LcdBible. I can imagine this would not be a trivial
> decision whether it was accepted. (Rejection might well be a trivial
> decision.)

As Martin related, "front-end status" is pretty trivial to grant or deny 
simply on the basis of whether the program uses the Sword API.  Now, 
whether we list the front-end on our pages is another matter.  There are a 
couple of front-ends floating around out there that we don't link to.  For 
example, we don't link to front-ends that are abandoned and don't work 
with anything beyond the 1.4 branch.  We also don't link to front-ends 
that violate our license and rip us off by turning Sword into 
closed-source adware.  Beyond that, it's essentially a question of whether 
a particular program is ready for public consumption and is worth 
downloading.
 
> * I would appreciate input as to whether there are licenses that might not
> be as onerous as GPL? I have no problem with open source, but do have some
> (uninformed) concerns about the "GPL-virus" issue? Is LGPL viable? I will
> comply with whatever is required, but would like to look into further. The
> JSword project has bumped into this issue, and I will check with Joe Walker.

I don't think those of us who have actually contributed any work to the 
Sword Project consider it onerous at all.  It's rather insulting of you to 
suggest that.

Basically, if you use Sword in another product, you will license it under
the GPL, exclusively.

Your "concerns" amount to basically saying, "Hi Sword Project.  I think 
you've done some valuable work.  In fact, it's just valuable enough that 
I want to steal it and completely violate the principles that allowed it 
to exist in the first place."

If you like the Sword Project, realize that it is its open nature that has
allowed it to become what it is.  Collaboration and openness are why the
Sword Project runs on more platforms than all other Bible reafer programs
COMBINED.  They're why we have more books than anyone except Logos & the
STEP publishers (collectively).  They're why we can distribute over 40,000
Bibles every month.  They're why Bible societies & other Christian
organizations would come to us to collaborate.  And they're also what
allow us to incorporate the work of others, like folks at GNU and those
working on ICU and CLucene.  And naturally, they're why we get the
occasional poacher who tries to steal our efforts (like the adware people
I mentioned above)

When you make the decision to use the Sword Project, you are required to 
adopt the same licensing and permit the same openness.  That is the price.  
Maybe if you'd like to offer CrossWire a few tens of thousands of dollars, 
we'd consider granting you some other license terms.  But chances are, 
unless there were some really good reason why you couldn't adopt the GPL 
yourself, we'd just ignore you.

The LGPL, BSD/X/MIT, MPL, etc. licenses all have their places.  However, 
no product built upon Sword may adopt any license other than the GPL.  

--Chris