[sword-devel] what was intended and what was said

[Paul Gear]

Jason Galyon wrote:
> reading over my emails I can see I did a very poor job of wording
> 
> My opinion over the choice of license for sword was never intended to be 
> conveyed.  I personally am only concerned in the desired use of the 
> sofware from a "spirit" and "letter" of the law/license.  From a more 
> legal perspective, can a non GPL (but an OSI approved license) interface 
> with sword given the architecture is X, Y or Z?

The issue is not whether a license is OSI-approved, but whether it is
GPL-compatible.  The FSF does not place any value on the OSI's marks
(the FSF & OSI are not working on the same issues).  You can find a list
of which modules are GPL-compatible at the FSF's site:
	http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html

-- 
Paul
<http://paul.gear.dyndns.org>
-- 
A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q: Why shouldn't i write my replies at the top of emails?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20080128/cbf316f8/attachment.bin