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

[Greg Hellings]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Daniel Hughes <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK guys so that bottom line is that if I want to use libsword I must add a
> GPL2 licence, so that I licence my code under both GPL2 and GPL3.
>
> I would be interested in know what it is in GPL3 that sword contributors are
> unhappy about. It still ensures that commercial entities cannot take from us
> our work and contribute nothing back to us. This is exactly the same as
> GPL2. So in this regard the GPL3 provides exactly the protection you say
> require. So why are you excluding it.

Currently it is only because we initially licensed under GPL2 only and
not GPL2 and later. This was chosen before I joined but I'm told this
was the decision so that, if GNU changed the GPL (which they did) we
wanted the chance to resist the change.

There has been no good reason given for SWORD to change to GPL3 or 2+.
So we have avoided changing.

--Greg

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Hughes <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is from the FSF in 2010
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement/
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Nic Carter <niccarter at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm interested in hearing how exactly it is incompatible... It originally
>>> was (in 2008 when you weren't able to make any iOS source code publicly
>>> available, a rather unfortunate decision which has since been overturned!)
>>> but it is now my understanding that that is no longer the case & hence we
>>> started developing an iOS app.
>>>
>>> Sent from my phone, hence this email may be short...
>>>
>>> On 13/08/2012, at 11:16, Daniel Hughes <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> To further complicate things, how is PocketSword available in the the
>>> apple app store when the app store terms of service are incompatible with
>>> the GPL?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Hughes <trampster at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK here is the issue for me. My application (Wide Margin) is GPL 3. It
>>>> has been all it's life. I want to use libsword. But libsword is GPL2.
>>>>
>>>> GPL 3 is a later version of GPL 2. The FSF want people to use GPL 3.
>>>>
>>>> What would it take for the sword project to re-licence to: GPL 2 or
>>>> later. I'm sure that the libsword contributors would have no problem with
>>>> allowing GPL 3 applications use the library.
>>>>
>>>> How many contributors do you have, how hard would it be for you to
>>>> contact them and get permission for this licence change. Otherwise you are
>>>> going to be preventing more and more libraries who are following FSF
>>>> recommendations and licencing as GPL3.
>>>>
>>>> Xiphos uses GPL2 or later. This would make Xiphos non-compliant.
>>>>
>>>> Bible time uses GPL2 but contains this text:
>>>> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>>> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>>> (at your option) any later version.
>>>>
>>>> This would make BibleTime also non-compliant
>>>>
>>>> Looks like you guys have a bit of a problem on your hands. What are you
>>>> planning to do about it?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of confusion about.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is actually very simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> A complete programme binary incorporating libsword (or other GPL2 code)
>>>>> requires to be GPL2, i.e. full sources need to be released etc etc etc.
>>>>> The "compatible" is here very limited as essentially only a copyleft
>>>>> license will do.
>>>>>
>>>>> But GPL2 code can incorporate any kind of GPL2 compatible code - in any
>>>>> amount.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it is possible to create a GPL2 application based on libsword,
>>>>> where
>>>>> 100% of the non library code is PD, allowing anyone who wants to e.g.
>>>>> to
>>>>> make use of the PD code in commercial close sourced applications - as
>>>>> long as such applications no not link to libsword, but use a different
>>>>> Bible backend.
>>>>>
>>>>> An example of that exists within the wider Sword family in LCD Bible.
>>>>> The author took his GUI code and reworked it for making a closed source
>>>>> application with a different backend. If he had BSD licensed or PD
>>>>> dedicated the GUI code, he would have allowed others to do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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