[sword-devel] Bereans and Sword and GPL vs PD

[Lynn Allan]

> I don't really want to get into this as I work on many gpl projects. I
have
> increasingly lately seen many people asking these types of questions and
then
> flat our right stealing the code and selling it on ebay or whatever.

> Most of us prefer the gpl for it's relative safety against those trying to
> monger, poach, steal, and then lie about their activities. Don't get me
wrong

Philippians 1:12-18 seems, to me, to strongly indicate we shouldn't care
whether this does or doesn't happen. I think people are missing the point of
my original eMail: what is Biblical guidance on this question? WWJD?

> I'm not  saying this is your course of action or  your preferred behavior
but I do
> have to ask Why do you continue to harass this project with this line of
> reasoning?

Reasonable question:
<please ignore if you already have more info that you care to about InVerse
and/or LcdBible>
The Inverse Scripture memorization freeware has been open source Mozilla 1.1
since beta. In about 2 years, there have been about 20 releases. I have made
the source available throughout (tend to get behind because it can be a
hassle and I'm not all that industrious.). The last release was Oct 13, 2003
with improved Pocket-PC and Palm interfaces. An enhanced version with better
"Topic" handling is in final "Release Candidate" status.

It comes "preloaded" with 15,300 verses from 11 different English Bible
translations, including PD and commercial. (NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, etc.
InVerse uses the default number of allowed verses, and has received legally
executed waivers from some publishers for additional verses.) I have been
interested in integration with sword or e-Sword to simplify preloading. An
eventual release with have 2x to 3x more verses, and 2x more Bible
translations. The original design with 80 verses has not "scaled well",
hence my interest in sword.

The LcdBible software is also an open source sourceforge.net project using
the Mozilla 1.1 license. My impression is that Mozilla 1.1 is GPL compatible
 based on section 13 (whatever that means). Mozilla 1.0 is not GPL
compatible. I have read the entire gpl faq, but ianal.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

The preliminary LcdBible software proposal appeared on sword-devel on Dec 1.
The first prototype appeared Dec 3. The second prototype (about feature
complete) appeared Dec 9, with bug fix on Dec 10. (As it now stanads, it is
probably in violation of the sword understanding of GPL because it uses
radically simplified mods of VerseKey and RawText classes to access
./modules/texts/rawtext/*.* , but is not GPL. The source has been available
on sourceforge. It is obviously a "work in progress." I have had discussions
with Troy G. regarding design/implementation of a "plug-in subset" of the
sword-api, and LcdBible uses an "experimental" subset as "proof of concept")

I claim that I could care less if Logos or Zondervan or sword or e-sword
"ripped off" InVerse code or LcdBible code. Phil 1:12-18
Obviously, I might feel differently if it had happened to me.

> And one last point it has nothing to do with how the sword project
translates
> the gpl it has rather more to do with the gpl itself as it is the same for
> any and all projects using it.

My uninformed impression is that many GPL projects tend to be ok with
"compatible licenses" and/or less restrictive use of libraries. The SWORD
Project doesn't seem to be. - i.a.n.a.l.- They certainly have that right.

Sharing the reason for the season,
http://learningcards.eeworks.org/EeCard01.html

Lynn A.