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

[Derek Neighbors]

Chris Little said:
> 2) We would not change our license.  You've apparently got problems with
>  the GPL.  I encourage you to get over them, and, if you really can't,
> to  move on.  We've had contributions from possibly over a hundred
> developers over the years, who contributed their code and other efforts
> to the SWORD Project with the understanding that it was GPL and the
> understanding that it would remain free.  To change the license now
> would violate the trust of those developers.  It would be plainly
> unethical.

Furthermore, it would be against the law unless you removed their changes
or got their permission to change the license.  Unless you asked them to
assign copyright on their works to you.  At least that would be my
understanding.

> 3) We don't want to change our license.  There's no good reason.  It
> ain't broke.  It encourages development.  It drives poachers away (well,
>  sometimes).

Yeah!  There was one point that I really thought SWORD might move to an
LGPL license.

>> To me, it seems clear that something very close to Public Domain is
>> obviously preferred.
>
> "To me" is important here.  Many of us see that PD is obviously a bad
> idea.

> I hope the answer to this question simply raises a misconception of some
>  aspect of the GPL that we can quickly dispell and get on with our
> lives.
>   We've been working on Sword for years and years now and have never
> come upon an instance where we were not able to do something that we
> wanted to as a result of restrictions in our license.  So what, really,
> is the problem?

That was my primary question.  What is it that makes "freeware" so
appealing over GPL software?  That is if your motive is to disseminate the
Word of God at no cost.  The GPL certainly doesn't seem to inhibit that
from where I am standing.

> Last I checked, Sword was avilable for free download.  Sword is also
> available on CD for the cost of CD duplication and postage.  And I'll
> admit that I haven't contributed much code lately, but if everyone else
> is getting paid for their work here, I feel pretty cheated--not to
> mention upset at being left out of the loop.


I don't see how the GPL breaks the freely given portion.  Let me take it a
step further.  I invited RMS down to an event Scottsdale Arizona.  Several
folks from this project showed up and actually disseminated SWORD cd's at
no cost.  What a better way to bear witness? I thought it was pretty cool.

> I guess I don't see how it applies to the GPL.  Free (as in beer/gratis)
>  is pretty much encoded in the GPL, or at least is an inevitable option.

Well not only that, but it makes it so that its "hard" to put a dollar
value on things. That is it's hard to hoard GPL works.

> This passage does suggest to me that commercial Bible software
> publishers are clearly evil.  You really should expend your efforts
> convincing them to quit selling software.  They're obviously breaking
> the commandment of Matt 10:6-10.  (Don't bother.  They'll rightly point
> you at 1Cor 9:8-11, which shows that they're not evil for selling
> software, and they'll send you on your way.)

I love it.  I agree 100%. I will add to the list of evil, those copyright
holders that refuse to let projects like SWORD publish their texts for
people. ;)

> But, in the end, why we will keep GPL amounts to:
> It serves us well.  We like it.  It benefits our ministry.

Sounds like reason enough to me. :)


-Derek