OK can understand the worry about FSF changing the terms of the licence in the future to something you are not happy with.<div><br></div><div>I will therefore licence my code under GPL2. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Daniel<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Chris Little <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chrislit@crosswire.org" target="_blank">chrislit@crosswire.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 08/12/2012 05:51 PM, Daniel Hughes wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
OK here is the issue for me. My application (Wide Margin) is GPL 3. It<br>
has been all it's life. I want to use libsword. But libsword is GPL2.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The license employed by The SWORD Project is presented in the LICENSE file in the root of the source tree. Most if not all of the source files identify themselves as being GPLv2 licensed. It was never a secret that Sword is GPLv2.<br>
<br>
We would certainly encourage adoption of Sword in additional Bible software, but the same license and rules apply to GPLv3-licensed open source projects as apply to closed source software that might want to incorporate Sword. Using Sword requires adoption of GPLv2.<br>
<br>
Peter's description of the options available to front-end authors was precisely correct. If you want to incorporate Sword, you'll have to adopt GPLv2. You can also license your code under other licenses, excluding those parts that actually interface with Sword. So you can license your work as 'version 2 or later', which would include 3, excluding those parts that specifically interface Sword. Binaries that include the Sword-interface code would obligatorily be GPLv2. If you build a binary without the Sword-interface code, such as your current non-Sword-interfacing builds, it can be under some other license, such as GPLv3.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
GPL 3 is a later version of GPL 2. The FSF want people to use GPL 3.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
CrossWire is not the FSF. The terms of GPLv2 are agreeable to us, and allowing "version 2 or later" licensing would fundamentally permit the FSF to relicense Sword in the future. I wouldn't trust the FSF to arbitrarily change the terms of the GPL in version 4 or 5 or 25.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What would it take for the sword project to re-licence to: GPL 2 or<br>
later. I'm sure that the libsword contributors would have no problem<br>
with allowing GPL 3 applications use the library.<br>
<br>
How many contributors do you have, how hard would it be for you to<br>
contact them and get permission for this licence change. Otherwise you<br>
are going to be preventing more and more libraries who are following<br>
FSF recommendations and licencing as GPL3.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I expect we'll follow Linux's lead. When Linux goes GPLv3, so will Sword.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Xiphos uses GPL2 or later. This would make Xiphos non-compliant.<br>
<br>
Bible time uses GPL2 but contains this text:<br>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify<br>
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by<br>
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or<br>
(at your option) any later version.<br>
<br>
This would make BibleTime also non-compliant<br>
<br>
Looks like you guys have a bit of a problem on your hands. What are you<br>
planning to do about it?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Xiphos & BibleTime can be GPLv2 or later, but only to the extent that their code can be dis-interfaced from Sword. Those applications could, for example, have all Sword-ness removed and be desktop interfaces to the Biblia.com API, and the result could be GPLv3 (or 4 or 5 ...). (I don't know about licensing terms on the Biblia.com API, but from the technical & Xiphos/BibleTime-licensing perspective this is accurate.)<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--Chris</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org" target="_blank">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>