[sword-devel] Still more about licencing

[Derek Neighbors]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lynn Allan wrote:
| Hello Ka-shu Wong,
|
| Thanks so much for writing. I believe I actually may understand those
issues
| that apply to the proposed LcdBible and the InVerse Scripture memorization
| freeware. You are a wizard of clarity. I hope you are correct.
|
| Would someone please correct any fallacies on my part with the following
| statements regarding GPL and The SWORD Project's license:
|
| * There can be two or more versions of the LcdBible software.

Yes.  This is called Dual Licesncing.  Mozilla, OpenOffice/Star Office,
MySQL and other large projects do this.  It is sticky, nasty and a
hornet's nest I wouldnt want to manage, but it is certainly do able.

| * To ethically/legally have access to The SWORD Project's
| .modules/texts/*.*, it must use the sword-api to retrieve verses. This
| corresponds to the "A" + "B" you describe. Thus, this version must release
| with GPL.

I am torn on the legal vs the ethical here.  If you wanted just the
texts, I assume they are under their own copyright.  In which case you
could write your own program to access them under whatever license
agrees with their copyright.  Ethically that would appear to not be a
nice community player, but would be legal.

However, if your only way to access those files is via the SWORD API
(and thus its libraries) then yes you must release it under the GPL. [0]

| * To be eligible for being a "front-end" for The SWORD Project's
| .modules/texts/*.*, it must do the above and thus must be released
with GPL.
| Again, this is "A" + "B".

I assume this is more a SWORD project decision than a license decision
as to what they want to include as their "front-ends".  As stated above
you could technically write a front end that accesses the text's that
doesn't use the SWORD API (assuming the text's copyright allows it), but
there would be no guarantee that the SWORD project would accept it as a
front end.  In fact, I would suspect they would be frustrated and deny
it. :)

| * A separate version of LcdBible could be free to access *other* public
| domain and freeware Bible texts. As long as it didn't utilize
sword-api code
| (developed in white-room?) or .modules/texts/*.* , it could be
licensed any
| way that I choose, including public domain, freeware, or for sale. This is
| the "A" without "B" situation.
| **********  HOWEVER  **************
| I have heard comments that seem to indicate that if the LcdBible software
| uses sword-api logic in order to be a "front-end" for The SWORD Project",
| then it foregoes the option of ever being other than GPL. According to
this
| interpretation, I could not develop a separate version that used
independent
| logic to access Bible texts other than ./modules/texts/*.*
|
| I would appreciate clarification on this point. Did I misunderstand
some to
| the earlier comments in this thread that seem to suggest the paragraph
| above? Or, is the paragraph above actually correct.

As you can tell "dual licensing" is horribly complex.  For what you want
to do, I see no real advantage as you are a minority code holder.  And
as you deduce it puts you in not much of a place to do things.

However, if SWORD wanted to dual license (and I hope they never do), it
could be to their advantage.  They could make a GPL version and then add
proprietary extensions in to offer other users under a different
license.   Running short on time so can't unfold scenarios to better
illustrate at this time.  Just note unless you are the primary copyright
holder of something, the advantages to you of dual licensing the
portions you write are slim to none.

| <alert ... an aside that may "frost" those tired of this scribbler's
| opinions>
| Frankly, it is not difficult to put together logic that accesses freeware
| uncompressed Bible text. The difficult part is rebuilding The SWORD
Projects
| libraries in order to gain access to its valuable modules/texts/*.* I will
| be glad to continue this thought in private posts, but that is more than
| enough for this public thread.
| <alert concluded>

Again if the modules/texts/*.* are under a license other the GPL (which
for some reason I am thinking is the case), then there would be nothing
from precluding you to write your own program to access them.

| Final comment: I believe someone else has previously described to me
| something similar to Ka-shu Wong's valuable input. I guess I wasn't paying
| enough attention since it seemed pretty academic and non-applicable.
When it
| got to "the rubber meets the road" re the LcdBible software, I wanted to
| confirm what the situation really was. In the interim, I had come across
| eMails that seemed to go well beyond the "A" + "B" described by Ka-shu
Wong.

I still am at a loss as why you like FreeWare, but are against the GPL?
~ This makes little sense to me.  Basically you can think of the GPL as
freeware that requires anyone changing the code and redistributing, to
make sure their new code is available to everyone else who has the code.

If you were arguing a BSD license or the such, I could see you trying to
say you want to profit off the work in ways others can't, or that you
wanted to allow others to make proprietary extensions.  However, with
Freeware/Public Domain style stuff, basically you make it so no one can
touch it that uses any form of copyrighted license.  I guess I just
don't get it.

- -Derek

[0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/18RJHb99+vQX/88RAubiAJ9Fc925X2GUhFYaVfJeKbiJ6HtgGQCeJWWR
gT3uHNIQ+fo6V1zAatzgyP4=
=fGQB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----