[sword-devel] iPhone NDA dropped

[Nathan Youngman]

Chris,

So what you're saying is the entire work would need to be distributed  
with GPL (2 or 3).
Though it could link in, say an MIT licensed Regex library.

Whether a front-end is derived or merely attached is debatable... but  
I don't feel like debating.

Though not entirely relevant to Sword, the thing I find the most  
distasteful is when various open source licenses don't get along. In  
that way, I prefer the simple non-copyleft licenses, not so much  
because they allow proprietary use, but because people don't end up  
rewriting one open source thing, just to combine it with another open  
source thing of a differing license.

- nathan


On 21-Oct-08, at 9:35 PM, Chris Little wrote:

> No. This is absolutely incorrect.
>
> We get discussions about what the terms of the GPL are or why we  
> should
> change the license once or twice a year, so feel free to dig up one of
> the old discussions or confirm this from a third party, such as the  
> FSF,
> if you like.
>
> Sword is licensed under the GPLv2 and only under that version of that
> license. The GPL states that any derived works must give the same
> license terms as those terms under which the original work was  
> licensed.
> It is not permitted to give more/fewer/different rights than exactly
> that set contained within GPLv2. So any derived work based on GPLv2  
> code
> must be GPLv2. Since frontends are derived works, "all frontends  
> MUST be
> GPLv2 licensed."
>
> The term "GPL compatible" does not mean that you can integrate GPL and
> GPL compatible code and license it under a (non-GPL) GPL compatible
> license. It means that you can integrate GPL and GPL compatible code  
> and
> license it under the GPL (only).
>
> --Chris

---
Nathan Youngman
Web: http://www.nathany.com