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

[Chris Little]

Lynn Allan wrote:

> 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

Just to be absolutely clear and explicit (since this has been covered 
before):

Your choice of licenses, if you use Sword, is as follow: GPL.
All other choices (such as MPL 1.1) constitute license violation and 
hence copyright violation.  Please see to it that this issue is cleared 
up on the sourceforge page.  (Your downloads are also missing license 
information.)

Explanation:
1) The site you cite actually states that the Mozilla Public License is 
NOT compatible with GPL.  What it states is that MPL 1.1 permitted dual 
licensing.  What this means is that if you have a piece of code that is 
covered by either MPL 1.1 or a second license that is GPL-compatible, 
you can choose the GPL-compatible license and use the code you integrate 
under that license.

2) The above paragraph is irrelevent.  GPL-compatability refers to code 
that you may integrate into code covered by the GPL.  It does NOT refer 
to licenses under which you may relicense GPL code.  By that reading, 
GPL would be void since public domain is on the GPL-compatible list.

>>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.

See explanation point 1 above.  We're very happy to integrate 
GPL-compatible code in Sword.  But no one is allowed to re-license our 
code or any other GPL code under any other license.

I don't think "many GPL projects" exist that allow non-GPL licensing. 
(See above, that would make the GPL completely void.)  If you could find 
any, I'd be interested to see it.

To ask again, though:
What is it, precisely, that you wish to do with LcdBible or InVerse that 
prohibits you from adopting the GPL license yourself?

You sort of addressed this by saying that InVerse and LcdBible are 
already MPL 1.1 licensed, but that's no reason to not license them under 
GPL.  Presumably, if you don't mind other people ripping you off, you 
wouldn't especially mind other people NOT ripping you off, right?

--Chris