[sword-devel] GPL 3 licencing issues

[Daniel Glassey]

On 17/07/07, Troy A. Griffitts <scribe at crosswire.org> wrote:
> Well,  because we have to answer the support emails, e.g. "I purchases your
> software and it doesn't work" from many unfortunate ThinkAll consumers.
> Though I agree with Chris that we likely only want to add restrictions to
> BibleCS if do decide to go that route.
>
> Eeli Kaikkonen <eekaikko at mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
> >> Whether the license would still result in free software would depend on
> >> the actual license terms. Of the three examples I listed, only the
> >> second, if written as an explicit prohibition on the "freedom" to embed
> >> adware, would result in non-free software. The others are entirely
> >> permissible in free software, at least as defined by Debian.
> >>
> >> I think I'd also add a requirement that distributors notify users that
> >> the software is free and include attribution and a link to CrossWire.
> >
> >These terms (except the second one), or something like these, seem to be
> >possible under GPL 3 (see section 7). I strongly advice against anything
> >which is incompatible with GPL.

It might be a good idea to dual-license the library - under the GPL
(whichever version), and under the specific 'anti-thinkall' licence.
Then BibleCS could be released only under the 'anti-thinkall' license.
And the other frontends could continue to be GPL.

Regards,
Daniel (who is catching up slowly on the list)