Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Hi, On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: > Tonny Kohar wrote: > >> People who distribute it >> (spread the Word) does not fall into must providing the source if >> someone ask and do not need to read complicated licensing things, >> that's why I choose PD. The GPL part I do not

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Ben Morgan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Little > wrote: > > > > Ben Morgan wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mmital

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Ben Morgan wrote: I thought it was the whole glob of the application that had to be able to be licensed under the GPL? An individual component of my application can be released under another license. Ok, I think I know what you're getting at. Assuming that you want to use a GPL library (e.g.

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

On Mar 16, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Ben Morgan wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Little wrote: Ben Morgan wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mmital mailto:mital.m...@gmail.com >> wrote: Hi, As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. So the public d

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Little wrote: > > > Ben Morgan wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mmital > mital.m...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>Hi, >> >>As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. So the >>public domain door is closed for me. >> >> The l

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

On Mar 16, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Chris Little wrote: Ben Morgan wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mmital mailto:mital.m...@gmail.com >> wrote: Hi, As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. So the public domain door is closed for me. The license for a front end h

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Ben Morgan wrote: On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mmital > wrote: Hi, As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. So the public domain door is closed for me. The license for a front end has to be GPL v2 compatible. Not GPL v2 necessa

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. >> > The license for a front end has to be GPL v2 compatible. Not GPL v2 > necessarily. > OK. SB will continue under GPL v2, so this does not apply to me. But it would be great if this was somewhere on the sword project website.

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mmital wrote: > Hi, > > As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. So the public > domain door is closed for me. The license for a front end has to be GPL v2 compatible. Not GPL v2 necessarily. And anyway, public domain is *not a license* - it i

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Hi, As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. So the public domain door is closed for me. However, as Peter pointed out, I am allowed to use free, NON-GPL third party source in my application. The author of the this code does not mind his source being distributed in this manner.

Re: [sword-devel] Alternative Versification - wiki page

Peter von Kaehne wrote: > Following on from the threads and various suggestions on and off line I > went to wiki to set up a page on Alternative Versifications. I have started adding content. Mostly from old emails, from the mailing list and from my general understanding. Please correct and expan

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

David Haslam wrote: Can someone please clarify whether "deuterocanonical" support in the pipeline is just extending scope of the canonical support to the 75 books found in many Catholic Bibles, or if it also will address the pseudo-epigraphical books as found in the Ethiopian (Amharic script) B

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Public domain is not a license. It just means that you let *anyone* use it *however* they want. You are basically saying "I don't claim copyright on this". However, if your code links to a GPLv2 product, then that combination has to be available under the GPLv2. So if you make SB public domain, any

[sword-devel] Adding Dictionary / Glossary lookups to History

The next version of FireBible will expose your reading history, see http://thegoan.com/dump/fb-history.png for a quick preview. As FireBible is URI based, all the information required is already being stored by Firefox in your regular browsing history, all I have added now are a few queries wh

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Tonny Kohar wrote: People who distribute it (spread the Word) does not fall into must providing the source if someone ask and do not need to read complicated licensing things, that's why I choose PD. The GPL part I do not like is that the license require anybody who distribute must provide a sou

[sword-devel] Alternative Versification - wiki page

Following on from the threads and various suggestions on and off line I went to wiki to set up a page on Alternative Versifications. There I found that David Haslam had already created in November last year a stub for a page. Thanks! http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Alternate_Versification So, my c

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Manu, As a frontend developer you can link to non GPL code. E.g. KDE was built on QT when it was not GPL. There are non GPL kernel modules. People do not like this a lot, but it is legal within the confines of the GPL So if you have e.g. an pre-existing alternative, closed source module driver, w

Re: [sword-devel] Alternate Versification

Thanks for the review DM. Appreciate the second set of eyes. It sounds like you have understood the new code perfectly, save: the c-tors or the lower level Bible/Commentary drivers now include an optional 'versification' parameter when being constructed. SWMgr reads a Versification property

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Hi, On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:12 PM, DM Smith wrote: > Alkitab Bible Study is public domain and clearly states it does not pertain > to any parts of JSword or any other third party library that JSword depends > upon. We discussed this on jsword-devel. It was a decision of the JSword > developme

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Chris, Thanks. That answers the question (that is, SB frontend *has* to continue under v2 of GPL). So I guess I need to contact the third party author and send him this list of compatible licenses: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses (asking him to look at the ones

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

DM Smith wrote: mmital wrote: Hi, I have been using Alkitab bible study lately. Fantastic piece of software, truly amazing. I also noticed that it is in public domain, while using sword engine that is in GPL v2, and other components that may have their own license (http://www.kiyut.com/

Re: [sword-devel] Alternate Versification

DM Smith wrote: If I am understanding this correctly, this leads me to believe that GenBooks are not going to be used, but rather regular Bible modules. If this is true, it is a boon to commentaries as well, as commentaries are structured internally as Bibles. And it gives us compressed modul

[sword-devel] Osis2mod transformations was Re: Alternate Versification

Greg Hellings wrote: DM, On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM, DM Smith wrote: I've been looking at the code regarding Alternate Versification (aka av11n and v11n; I've seen these abbreviations by Troy, Chris and others). It looks solid. The purpose of this note is to give it a big thumbs up.

Re: [sword-devel] Alternate Versification

DM, On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM, DM Smith wrote: > I've been looking at the code regarding Alternate Versification (aka av11n > and v11n; I've seen these abbreviations by Troy, Chris and others). > > It looks solid. The purpose of this note is to give it a big thumbs up. > > Basically here i

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Talbert wrote: >> >> As far as our version scheme, we used to follow linux kernel version >> standards of having x.y.z, even y as stable and odd as development.  As the >> linux kernel no longer does this, I supposed we still follow linux kernel >> version

[sword-devel] Alternate Versification

I've been looking at the code regarding Alternate Versification (aka av11n and v11n; I've seen these abbreviations by Troy, Chris and others). It looks solid. The purpose of this note is to give it a big thumbs up. Basically here is what I see: (Chris, Troy, correct me where I am off base! Ple

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

Along with the announcement, would it be possible to have a preliminary draft description being prepared as a CrossWire wiki page? Only link it from the main page after the announcement. Having one available as a reference and starting place would be very useful. -- David Chris Little-2 wrote:

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

> > As far as our version scheme, we used to follow linux kernel version > standards of having x.y.z, even y as stable and odd as development.  As the > linux kernel no longer does this, I supposed we still follow linux kernel > versioning scheme :)  We should have a plan again soon.  We actually h

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

mmital wrote: Thanks. I just wanted to know what are my options if I want to use third party code in my application that is free to use, but is not necessarily under the GPL. The author of this third party component is saying that I can use his free code, but he is not willing to license his c

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Thanks. I just wanted to know what are my options if I want to use third party code in my application that is free to use, but is not necessarily under the GPL. The author of this third party component is saying that I can use his free code, but he is not willing to license his code under GPL.

Re: [sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

mmital wrote: Hi, I have been using Alkitab bible study lately. Fantastic piece of software, truly amazing. I also noticed that it is in public domain, while using sword engine that is in GPL v2, and other components that may have their own license (http://www.kiyut.com/products/alkitab/LI

[sword-devel] Question about Public Domain

Hi, I have been using Alkitab bible study lately. Fantastic piece of software, truly amazing. I also noticed that it is in public domain, while using sword engine that is in GPL v2, and other components that may have their own license ( http://www.kiyut.com/products/alkitab/LICENSE-alkitab.txt)

[sword-devel] building a community

Hi, I just thought that sword projects visibility isn't that great atm. So I was wondering if it would make sense, trying to start getting the local user community together. That is, trying to get eg. german (I'm german, therefore I'm picking that as example) users/devs of the frontends together to

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

One last quick note. I hope I never gave the impression that 1.5.12 was to be a quick bugfix. This wasn't meant to say that I didn't hope to release earlier, just that I has always intended to move forward with the next release including the new functionality. I am sorry it has taken such t

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote: A couple quick clarifications about av11n and others... There are technically 2 routes to support this under development: 1) ripping out the hardcoded KJV canon.h offsets and replacing them with VerseMgr, which allows registration of can

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote: > A couple quick clarifications about av11n and others... > > There are technically 2 routes to support this under development: > > 1) ripping out the hardcoded KJV canon.h offsets and replacing them with > VerseMgr, which allows registrat

Re: [sword-devel] deuterocanonical support

"Troy A. Griffitts" writes: > I hope I never gave the impression that 1.5.12 was to be a quick bugfix. http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2008-November/029771.html "I would like to have a release soon, as well. We have committed to a 6 month release cycle and are about 1 month lat

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

A couple quick clarifications about av11n and others... There are technically 2 routes to support this under development: 1) ripping out the hardcoded KJV canon.h offsets and replacing them with VerseMgr, which allows registration of canon.h-like v11n systems. 2) genbook Bibles Both have bee

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

Hi there .. David Haslam wrote: Also, how utilities such as IMP2MOD with its command switch called "append" will work in the context of an extended canon for the SWORD API? In short, IMP2MOD won't handle these modules as they are being based on use of the general book module type with ve

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

On 16/03/2009, David Haslam wrote: > > > Can someone please clarify whether "deuterocanonical" support in the > pipeline > is just extending scope of the canonical support to the 75 books found in > many Catholic Bibles, or if it also will address the pseudo-epigraphical > books as found in the Et

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

Can someone please clarify whether "deuterocanonical" support in the pipeline is just extending scope of the canonical support to the 75 books found in many Catholic Bibles, or if it also will address the pseudo-epigraphical books as found in the Ethiopian (Amharic script) Bibles? Also, how utili

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

Am 16.03.2009 um 08:01 schrieb Peter von Kaehne: Ben Morgan wrote: Can I please plead not to have this in this release? Please? It would make a lot of the already existing Bibles actually usable on our system, so i plead the opposite. If the current SVN HEAD is stable and finalizing v11n

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

We were promised a smallish release 1.5.12 months ago - mainly to fix bugs and add a little to filters. It hasn't happened, partly because what ought to have been the alternate versification branch was done in trunk. There are big issues with 1.5.11 that have been fixed. Now it is relatively stable

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

Ben Morgan wrote: > Can I please plead not to have this in this release? Please? It would make a lot of the already existing Bibles actually usable on our system, so i plead the opposite. Peter ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Chris Little wrote: > > > Greg Hellings wrote: >> >> If not 1.6 or 2.0... then could you possibly explain to me the rhyme >> or reason given to the versioning system? > > The minor version indicates whether we're in a development (odd number) or > stable (even numb

Re: [sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

Greg Hellings wrote: If not 1.6 or 2.0... then could you possibly explain to me the rhyme or reason given to the versioning system? The minor version indicates whether we're in a development (odd number) or stable (even number) branch. Under that system, 1.6 and 2.0 wouldn't be right for th