On 17/07/07, Troy A. Griffitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, because we have to answer the support emails, e.g. "I purchases your
> software and it doesn't work" from many unfortunate ThinkAll consumers.
> Though I agree with Chris that we likely only want to add restrictions to
> BibleCS if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?
It is also called the 10-40 Windows.
It refers to the countries that lie between 10 and 40 north, and from
roughly the Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean. These countries tend
On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IOW, you are free to distribute it via CD to third parties. (This is
how it is distributed in a dozen countries in the 10-40 belt.)
Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?
10 & 40 refer to l
jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IOW, you are free to distribute it via CD to third parties. (This is
> how it is distributed in a dozen countries in the 10-40 belt.)
Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?
> I suspect that Stallman would be more than happy about suing licence
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>"GPL v2 or later" is good as it allows widest use.
>Both got very excited when they saw the freedom the GPL offered them -
it was news to them that such a licence even existed
a) There are a slew of similar licences. The dow
I come late to this issue and as I am not one of the programmers I think I have
probably little right to a say on the matter - I will say it anyway.
"GPL v2 or later" is good as it allows widest use.
Any restrictions on the GPL though - regarding rebranding, redistribution
notification or furth
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 11:22, DM Smith wrote:
> nterestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
> license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
> install BT or GS via an RPM, I'm not presented with the license.
> According to the GPL, it then needs to be av
DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
> license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
> install BT or GS via an RPM, I'm not presented with the license.
> According to the GPL, it then needs to be availabl
I just re-read v3 and v2. Ouch, my head hurts. Some of v3, like section
3 just don't make any sense to me. I'm glad I am not a lawyer!
Interestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
install BT or GS via an
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, DM Smith wrote:
> We should not "upgrade" the license unless we are solving a problem
> or need. We have lots of other things to work on.
I agree.
>
> The licenses should be compared to see what the differences are and
> whether it contributes anything. I read v3 a while back
My opinion (and I may be wrong on any of this).
We should not "upgrade" the license unless we are solving a problem
or need. We have lots of other things to work on.
The licenses should be compared to see what the differences are and
whether it contributes anything. I read v3 a while back (lo
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> If BibleCS and BibleDesktop disappeared people could just start
> using other programs, like e-sword.
People might not even notice that they had disappeared from
Windows. There are a plethora of free (gratis) Bible Study
programs, and almost as many commercially distribute
> This becomes even more important if Linux user base grows in the third
> world. Just like with paper Bibles, we are blessed with abundancy, but
> there are millions of persons who can't afford even one. We are declined
> to think about NIV etc. as very important and I also think they are -
> but
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
>
>
> Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> > Any of us don't actually loose anything even if someone sells our
> > software illegally. Why should we then be bitter when we know that he is
> > responsible in front of God the Judge?
>
> I'm not looking to get a cut of the
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Jeremy Erickson wrote:
> That means that BibleTime 2 on Windows with such a Sword library would be
> illegal, because BibleTime 2 will link with Qt 4, which is available only
> under the GPL on some platforms (unless we wanted to fork out lots of cash
> for a commercial license
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> Any of us don't actually loose anything even if someone sells our
> software illegally. Why should we then be bitter when we know that he is
> responsible in front of God the Judge?
I'm not looking to get a cut of the profits for myself or Troy or
CrossWire or anything l
Jonathon,
Yes, you are correct. If your organization decides to contribute code to
CrossWire, you grant CrossWire full ownership rights to the contribution.
This effectively lets CrossWire do whatever they want with it. If they
decide to grant, say, the United Bible Societies permission to use
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> scares you, remember that you don't give up your ownership of your own code,
> you merely give CrossWire full ownership priviledges, as well.
Can I get a clarification here.
If an organization contributes code to Crosswire, Crosswire
can use it under the GPL 2.0 (or 3.
IANAL, but my understanding is that the GPLv2 only allows code under the GPLv2
(or a license such as BSD/MIT which permits everyhing the GPL does) to be
linked with GPL'd code. The GPLv3 has wording in section 7 to explicitly
allow linking from MIT/BSD/etc., as well as allowing certain restrict
Chris Little wrote:
> some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
> our software that we've seen in the past:
a) Have those commercial abusers violated the GNU GPL.
If so, what action was taken against them?
b) The advantage of GPL 3.0, is that it more clearly
deli
Sorry for all the typos and 'top-posting', but I'm at work so this will also
be a quick comment.
1) I had thought I removed all the 'or later versions' from all the files a
few years back, as it seemed too open-ended.
2) Jason Galyon pointed out the possibility of companies asking us for a
specia
Well, because we have to answer the support emails, e.g. "I purchases your
software and it doesn't work" from many unfortunate ThinkAll consumers.
Though I agree with Chris that we likely only want to add restrictions to
BibleCS if do decide to go that route.
Eeli Kaikkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
> Whether the license would still result in free software would depend on
> the actual license terms. Of the three examples I listed, only the
> second, if written as an explicit prohibition on the "freedom" to embed
> adware, would result in non-free softwa
jhphx wrote:
> Can you include work released under 2 or 3 that was licensed without the
> additional restrictions in a work that has the additional restrictions.
> I didn't think that kind of thing was allowed. Is that a "compatible"
> license? It has been a long time since I have looked at thi
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
>> Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
>> some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
>> our software that we've seen in the past: restrictions against changing
>> the
Chris Little wrote:
> Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
> some additional restrictions ...
Can you include work released under 2 or 3 that was licensed without the
additional restrictions in a work that has the additional restrictions.
I didn't think that ki
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote:
> Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
> some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
> our software that we've seen in the past: restrictions against changing
> the software title to hide its ide
It's probably time we (or maybe just Troy) decided how we feel about
GPL3. The final version does seem to have addressed the more onerous
issues of the drafts and there are enough significant GPL2 projects
changing over to GPL3 that I would feel comfortable with Sword doing
likewise.
I think w
I think generally we're of the opinion that it would be best if Sword
remained free software--and that includes both the library and the
frontends, as well as some of the Sword-related tools.
We want our software to be used, both by developers and end-users. But
we don't want our years of work
keith preston wrote:
> Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was
> licensed under the GPL license. Is there a specific purpose for being
> specifically GPL? To me if would be benifical for the library to be
> LGPL or a less restrictive license. I mean the purpose of
Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was licensed
under the GPL license. Is there a specific purpose for being specifically
GPL? To me if would be benifical for the library to be LGPL or a less
restrictive license. I mean the purpose of the code is to make the bible
av
Sword library source code has some licencing issues. Different files
have different licence statements. They should be reviewed and
corrected.
The problem is mostly theoretical because nobody really cares - the
library is under GPL and that's that. But there may arise issues later
with GPL 3. Some
32 matches
Mail list logo
