[sword-devel] GPL restrictions (was Re: using a zText module)

[Greg Hellings]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the distinction. For GPLv2 software A to be used by or
> incorporated in some other software B, GPLv2 must be compatible with
> software B's license. The set of licenses that GPLv2 is compatible with
> consists of exactly and only GPLv2. (This is distinct from the set of
> licenses that are compatible with GPLv2, which includes GPLv2, BSD, and many
> others.) GPLv2 and GPLv3 are mutually incompatible.

I think you're understanding "compatible" more narrowly than it
actually means. Here is the quote from the email exchange with the
FSF, asking specifically about public domain:

>The crucial words here are "or a GPL-compatible license".
>Public domain is compatible with the GPL.
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain
>
>Therefore this is ok and the application code can be public domain,
>while the library is GPL.

You might not understand, but this is how the FSF explains it. An
application may be non-GPL, so long as its license is compatible with
the GPL. That is, the license has to be one which would permit the
application to utilize GPL libraries. Any of the licenses on the
compatability list are OK for the application.

A modification of SWORD itself (including of the bindings included
with the library) would need GPLv2 licensing to be released. THAT is
the restrictiveness of GPLv2. But as long as I'm just binding or
linking against the library, I don't have to be limited to GPLv2.
GPLv2 compatible is OK.

--Greg

>
> From FSF, stated explicitly:
>
> GPLv3 not compatible with GPLv2:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
>
> GPLv2 not compatible with GPLv3:
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_licenses
>
> --Chris
>
>
> On 08/12/2012 12:16 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>
>> This is not true. Any modifications to Sword need to be GPLv2 but any
>> applications or bindings need only be GPLv2-compatible.
>>
>> This had been explicitly checked and confirmed with the staff at FSF.
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2012 1:57 PM, "Chris Little" <chrislit at crosswire.org
>> <mailto:chrislit at crosswire.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 08/11/2012 07:38 PM, Daniel Hughes wrote:
>>
>>         I wouldn't go as far as to say that I have working c# bindings,
>>         I only
>>         have a very small subset working. I was planning on publishing
>>         what I
>>         have on bitbucket under GPL3.
>>
>>
>>     A small reminder: The SWORD Project is licensed as GPL2.
>>
>>     It is not licensed as LGPL or as GPL3 or as 'GPL2 or later', so all
>>     derivative works, including any applications (or bindings) that make
>>     use of the library, must be licensed as GPL2.
>>
>>     --Chris
>>
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>>     <mailto:sword-devel at crosswire.org>
>>     http://www.crosswire.org/__mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>>
>>     <http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel>
>>     Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page