Lynn Allan wrote:
The LcdBible software is also an open source sourceforge.net project using
the Mozilla 1.1 license. My impression is that Mozilla 1.1 is GPL compatible
based on section 13 (whatever that means). Mozilla 1.0 is not GPL
compatible. I have read the entire gpl faq, but ianal.
http:/
On Sunday 14 December 2003 08:56 pm, Lynn Allan wrote:
> Philippians 1:12-18 seems, to me, to strongly indicate we shouldn't care
> whether this does or doesn't happen. I think people are missing the point
> of my original eMail: what is Biblical guidance on this question? WWJD?
I dont really care
I just thought I should mention my BibleStudy (a.k.a. wxSword) that is hosted
at www.sf.net/projects/christiangame the development is a little stale, but
it is a fully functioning wx based alternative to the current windows ui.
-Jason Turner
On Friday 12 December 2003 06:45 am, Lynn Allan wrote
> I don't really want to get into this as I work on many gpl projects. I
have
> increasingly lately seen many people asking these types of questions and
then
> flat our right stealing the code and selling it on ebay or whatever.
> Most of us prefer the gpl for it's relative safety against those tr
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:24, Rev. Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
>> A commercial project is quite at liberty to include GPLed code,
>> providing that any derivatives are also GPLed.
> Yes, but then it is not "commercial." [...] I mean that it is
> restricted from modification, distribution, and sale ex
Lynn,
I do not presume to speak for the Sword Project, but here is how I see the
situation.
Corporations are always looking for more profit potential.
They already have mechanisms in place for production, distribution, and
marketing.
If anything of value such at the sword api were placed in the
At 10:37 15-12-03, Leon Brooks wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:07, Rev.
Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
> A commercial project can use PD code or LGPL code, but it
> cannot use GPL code.
False. Many of them do, the classic example being Microsoft's Services
For Unix (SFU), which includes not just GPLe
On Wednesday 10 December 2003 12:39 pm, Lynn Allan wrote:
> I would probably prefer to release LcdBible and the InVerse Scripture
> memorization freeware to the Public Domain than use the GPL as it seems to
> be understood on The SWORD Project.
I don't really want to get into this as I work on man
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:07, Rev. Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
> A commercial project can use PD code or LGPL code, but it
> cannot use GPL code.
False. Many of them do, the classic example being Microsoft's Services
For Unix (SFU), which includes not just GPLed code but the GNU Compiler
Collection
At 09:26 15-12-03, Chris Little wrote:
Rev. Michael Paul Johnson
wrote:
At 06:58 15-12-03, Chris Little
wrote:
...
PD is anti-"IP". It destroys an idea's economic value
(but certainly not its intellectual value) by making it free to
all. And what's more, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! (disclaimer: PD i
Rev. Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
At 06:58 15-12-03, Chris Little wrote:
...
PD is anti-"IP". It destroys an idea's economic value (but certainly not its
intellectual value) by making it free to all. And what's more, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
(disclaimer: PD is only unconstitutional if you reside
At 06:58 15-12-03, Chris Little wrote:
...In the simplest terms:
>1) We cannot legally change our license right now. We use code owned by the Free
>Software Foundation that is GPL licensed. Changing the licenses is not an option.
This much is true. That is part of the beauty of the GPL, and the
Lynn Allan wrote:
Before the scars of the recent GPL thread have faded from memory, it would
perhaps be appropriate to discuss the underlying issue.
I'm not sure what you hope to gain by digging into this again. Asking
once just indicates unfamiliarity. Asking twice indicates we lacked
clarit
Title: [sword-devel] Quasi-internationalized versions of LcdBible available (spanish-rv, french-lsg, german-lut)
Hi Sword-devel'ers,
>> How
are you actually doing the i18n? From this end it sounds like you
>> might actually be maintaining separate codebases or something
rather >> than usin
Title: [sword-devel] MakeFile for Sword Engine
Related question:
How about makefiles for rebuilding Sword engine and
gui using Borland's CBuilder 5.0 and/or 6.0 and CBuilderX? I'm pretty sure I
know that these aren't available, but thought I'd ask.
Sharing the reason for the season,
http://l
[sword-devel] MakeFile for Sword EngineSimon,
Glad to hear it. While the process is "fresh", can you make notes about your
experience setting up cgywin to assist subsequent volunteers to sword?
(Perhaps TWiki if the maintainers feel this is approprate? or mvnForum?)
There is a page about setting u
Before the scars of the recent GPL thread have faded from memory, it would
perhaps be appropriate to discuss the underlying issue.
>From a Biblical perspective, what is the appropriate license(s) for The
SWORD Project and/or The CrossWire Bible Society? What verses would the
Bereans have found i
> It is nice to know that the formats did change or that there were some
> problems with the system. I have been keep track of the mailing
> list for a
> while, a year + maybe, and I don't recall hearing that it needed
> reimporting for the module. Although I am not aware of how to do a
> reimport,
18 matches
Mail list logo
