Jaak,
Many of our copyrighted modules are licensed only to CrossWire for their
distribution. This has nothing to do with GPL or other software licenses. When
we negotiate for rights we try to be clear that CrossWire's software libraries
(SWORD and JSword) are used by many front-ends on many pla
Hey everyone, maybe it would be a good idea to take a step back and
cool off a bit? The messages are getting angry and somewhat personal.
I'd like to think that no one here is trying to be bad or do anything
wrong.
I think that people disagree with Jaak's decisions and think it's
wrong
Thank you, Troy!
On 26.09.2016 20:29, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> I can foresee a few problems for Bibletime not basing development on
> libsword, one primarily being that the software will need to discern the
> distribution rights of the module repository, if you still plan to point
> Bibletime to
Since a need was felt to create a fork - a fork that accesses the same vast
library of Bible texts and commentaries and supporting materials - it
becomes clear that this vast library is a valued asset, as perceived by the
creator of the fork. A fork could also have been created that starts
producin
Hi Jaak and others,
Karl is right, we haven't had an official release since 24-Dec-2014,
which is way too long (there is a 1.7.5a1.tar.gz bundle out there dated
Aug-2015 but I'd have to talk with Greg to see what that is). This
delay is in part due to my deficiencies in adequately marking for
On 26.09.2016 19:43, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for
> one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this -
> regression and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have
> made this very clear.
> On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
> Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for
> one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this -
> regression and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have
> made
Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for
one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this - regression
and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have made this very
clear.
But, I guess, you are not in a mood to listen to th
On 26.09.2016 10:56, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> We are supporting 32 bit devices and operating systems for the foreseeable
> future. Emails on sword-support confirm that.
I have no problem with Sword doing that. But you can't force Sword++ to
do that, unless of course you get involved and help ou
Jaak,
We are supporting 32 bit devices and operating systems for the foreseeable
future. Emails on sword-support confirm that.
Libsword use is considerably more than Bibletime.
I am not argueing against increased speed and changes in the development model,
I am arguing against careless breaka
10 matches
Mail list logo
