Thanks Chris.
Here's an English Septuagint versification system, based upon the text
I got from Michael and compared to a number of printed version. The
Chapter order doesn't quite follow the KJV or NSRV convention, but it
does follow the Septuagints order.
I appreciate it if you could add this
I was making changes to the LXX2012 version - but then quit. I
decided to instead work on getting out a version with original text.
I've created a versification system based upon an 1857 edition of
Brenton's book (and consulted 2 other versions, including a 1900
edition). The versification doesn'
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Daniel Hughes 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. I
OK can understand the worry about FSF changing the terms of the licence in
the future to something you are not happy with.
I will therefore licence my code under GPL2. Thanks for taking the time to
explain your position to me.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Chris Little wrote:
On 08/12/2012 05:51 PM, Daniel Hughes 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.
The license employed by The SWORD Project is presented in the LICENSE
file in the root of the source tree. M
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
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 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 co
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 s
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Daniel Hughes 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.
That is their recommendat
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 wrote:
> OK here is the issue for me. My application (Wide Margin) is GPL 3. It has
> been all
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 tha
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.
More specifically is the GPL FAQ page, which states the matter very succinctly.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
Yes. The application "has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license".
--Greg
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 201
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 01:11 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little
>> 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
On 08/12/2012 01:11 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little 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 i
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little 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 an
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 t
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" wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 07:38 PM, Daniel Hughes 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
Greg is right, but concerning VerseKey objects. The problem with instancing a
VerseKey is that it defaults to the KJV v11n system. The module may use
another. So, then you need to setVersification appropriately on the newly
instantiated VerseKey to access all the verses correctly for the module.
20 matches
Mail list logo
