[sword-devel] MacSword2 early dev

[Matt Reimer]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Matt Reimer <mattjreimer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Manfred,
>>>
>>> Where would the source for it be?  I remember you were working on
>>> pulling out just an Obj-C wrapper for the SWORD library which we had
>>> talked about as being possibly useful for working on the iPhone.  How
>>> mature is that wrapper at this point, and how can I locate and
>>> download it?  I'm once again trying to forge a path to see if GPLv2
>>> apps are possible on the device (I know v3 is not workable because of
>>> the application signing that Apple requires).  Since getting mine,
>>> I've been very disappointed that all of the Bible programs are either
>>> for-pay or have questionable quality of their modules (the only free
>>> Bible app for the iPhone is put out by the people over at youversion -
>>> and it requires you to have a good data connection and the quality of
>>> their modules is very poor so far).
>>>
>>> --Greg
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> My plan for a first draft of a usable, offline Bible program for the
>> iPhone is to use my host to dump the texts pre-rendered as HTML into
>> sqlite db files, which would save me having to learn how to make an
>> Obj-C wrapper, and will probably be significantly faster. We can go
>> ahead and get the UI working, and later go back and use SWORD as the
>> backend. Also, that wouldn't require having to work out license issues
>> first.
>
> That doesn't really avoid the licensing issues.  If you're using the
> SWORD library for it, then you've got to abide by the SWORD engine's
> licensing, and you also have issues with the licensing of many of the
> modules if you plan to dump them like that.  If Manfred's Obj-C
> wrapper for the SWORD library is functional, there's no reason that we
> can't drop it straight into an application... unless the Apple
> developer agreement is still to be interpreted as disallowing
> open-source software.

Thanks Greg, that's helpful.

Matt