Dear Bastian,
Thank you for taking the time to look into this and submit a patch to
solve this issue. Applied.
I appreciate your contribution,
Troy
On 5/15/21 3:41 AM, Bastian Germann wrote:
> The svn diff with the licenses is included.
>
> Am 15.05.21 um 10:31 schrieb Greg Hellings:
>> I apo
The svn diff with the licenses is included.
Am 15.05.21 um 10:31 schrieb Greg Hellings:
> I apologize, my eyes glaze over whenever licensing discussions come up.
> Please work up whatever patch you think is appropriate and get Troy to
> apply it.
>
> --Greg
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2021, 15:32 Bastia
I apologize, my eyes glaze over whenever licensing discussions come up.
Please work up whatever patch you think is appropriate and get Troy to
apply it.
--Greg
On Fri, May 14, 2021, 15:32 Bastian Germann
wrote:
> Am 26.12.20 um 19:53 schrieb Troy A. Griffitts:
> >> Furthermore, some files in th
Am 26.12.20 um 19:53 schrieb Troy A. Griffitts:
>> Furthermore, some files in the cmake directory miss accompanying
>> licenses. At least CMake's 3-clause BSD license, cmake/toolchains's
>> 2-clause BSD license, and the Boost Software License have to be included
>> in source distributions. The BSD
Dear Bastian,
Thank you for your email and my apologies for taking so long to get back
with you. I've been slowing committing changes over the past weeks in
response to your comments. More response below, inline.
On 11/9/20 12:56 PM, Bastian Germann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Packaging SWORD 1.9.0 for De
Hi,
Packaging SWORD 1.9.0 for Debian, I found possible license issues.
The file src/utilfuns/zlib/untgz.c stems from some older zlib release.
At that state, one could have assumed it to be zlib licensed which is
not clearly stated in any version of that file. I opened a zlib issue at
https://gith
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Re: Dual Ownership
>
> Yes, CrossWire as always had the policy of requiring ownership be also
> granted to CrossWire for any contributions which get added to our
> repository. This has been discussed many times and should be posted
> cons
Re: Dual Ownership
Yes, CrossWire as always had the policy of requiring ownership be also
granted to CrossWire for any contributions which get added to our
repository. This has been discussed many times and should be posted
conspicuously in multiple locations on our website (I hope it is
sti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05.02.2014 02:14, Daniel Hughes wrote:
> This might be a little off topic but does the line... "The SWORD
> Project is (c) 1994-2006 The CrossWire Bible Society"
>
> Mean that sword requires copyright assignment to CrossWire for all
> contribution
This might be a little off topic but does the line...
"The SWORD Project is (c) 1994-2006 The CrossWire Bible Society"
Mean that sword requires copyright assignment to CrossWire for all
contributions? If so is this because CrossWire also licences SWORD
under commercial terms or wants to be able to
I updated the license yesterday in r3026, with the year 2014 and a new
copy of the GPL. (Our copy was a bit stale and had some errors and other
stuff that had long been corrected.)
--Chris
On 02/04/2014 12:37 PM, DM Smith wrote:
FYI: You are only supposed to update a date range on a file of
FYI: You are only supposed to update a date range on a file of code when it
changes.
IMHO: Since copyright is a lot longer than any of us will experience, the
actual end year is not that important.
On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:30 PM, David Haslam wrote:
> Suggest the license date range be updated to
Suggest the license date range be updated to 1994-2014.
And for whoever actions it to add a repeat calendar action for annual
update.
Blessings,
David
--
View this message in context:
http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Sword-LICENSE-tp4653466p4653479.html
Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.02.2014 23:17, Chris Little wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 12:42 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> The LICENSE file states the following:
>>
>> The SWORD Project is (c) 1994-2006 The CrossWire
On 02/03/2014 12:42 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello!
The LICENSE file states the following:
The SWORD Project is (c) 1994-2006 The CrossWire Bible Society, under the
terms of the GNU GPL, as stated below.
NOTE: The text of the GNU GPL license is co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello!
The LICENSE file states the following:
The SWORD Project is (c) 1994-2006 The CrossWire Bible Society, under the
terms of the GNU GPL, as stated below.
NOTE: The text of the GNU GPL license is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, Inc.
Chris Little wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
I do fully desire to be able to use OSIS documents.
To me Sword project is the most open Bible software availalbe.
This is why I chose this project.
Texts wise, what would I miss out on by going an OSIS route?
Would there be docume
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> I do fully desire to be able to use OSIS documents.
>
> To me Sword project is the most open Bible software availalbe.
> This is why I chose this project.
>
> Texts wise, what would I miss out on by going an OSIS route?
> Would there be documents unav
Chris Little wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
If you want to use Sword as a library of any sort (linked statically or
dynamically) it requires that your work be GPL since we are not LGPL
licensed.
Does this mean I could not use the Sword libraries as a plugin?
Would this also
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Joe Walker wrote:
> >If you write your own classes in Squeak to read Sword modules, you're not
> >incorporating Sword GPL code into your work. If you read our code to see
> >how we do it and then write your own code to perform the same functions,
> >you're not violating our
Joe Walker wrote:
My understanding is that all the GPL obliges you to do is release the
code under GPL. It does not stop you releasing it under the GPL AND
another MIT/BSD style license (so long as there is no ad. clause conflict)
Many projects like Mozilla and MySQL (IIRC) are released under 2
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Joe Walker wrote:
> My understanding is that all the GPL obliges you to do is release the
> code under GPL. It does not stop you releasing it under the GPL AND
> another MIT/BSD style license (so long as there is no ad. clause conflict)
> Many projects like Mozilla and MySQL
Joe Walker said:
>
> My understanding is that all the GPL obliges you to do is release the
> code under GPL. It does not stop you releasing it under the GPL AND
> another MIT/BSD style license (so long as there is no ad. clause
> conflict) Many projects like Mozilla and MySQL (IIRC) are released un
My understanding is that all the GPL obliges you to do is release the
code under GPL. It does not stop you releasing it under the GPL AND
another MIT/BSD style license (so long as there is no ad. clause conflict)
Many projects like Mozilla and MySQL (IIRC) are released under 2 licences.
So if t
Chris Little wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/information
write (port would be accurate?) classes, methods, etc. in Squeak to
process Sword Modules would I be obligated to also use the GPL?
If you write your
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> > If you want to use Sword as a library of any sort (linked statically or
> > dynamically) it requires that your work be GPL since we are not LGPL
> > licensed.
>
> Does this mean I could not use the Sword libraries as a plugin?
> Would this also aff
Chris Little wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/information
write (port would be accurate?) classes, methods, etc. in Squeak to
process Sword Modules would I be obligated to also use the GPL?
If you write your own clas
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/information
> write (port would be accurate?) classes, methods, etc. in Squeak to
> process Sword Modules would I be obligated to also use the GPL?
If you write your own classes in Squeak to
Derek Neighbors wrote:
Jimmie Houchin said:
If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/information
write (port would be accurate?) classes, methods, etc. in Squeak to
process Sword Modules would I be obligated to also use the GPL?
Copyrighted works are copyrighted works. I gue
Yes, I understand the GPL. In many instances I believe it is often the
better license. I greatly appreciate the GPL in regard to my Linux OS.
I also think it is great that you distribute WEB as Public Domain. I
would do likewise if I ever publish like material.
When I talk about the viral natur
Jimmie Houchin said:
> If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/information
> write (port would be accurate?) classes, methods, etc. in Squeak to
> process Sword Modules would I be obligated to also use the GPL?
Copyrighted works are copyrighted works. I guess it might be best
At 17:37 16-01-03 -0600, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
I have a question about the Sword
license.
From what I see the source code is GPL. In many instances I have no
problem with the GPL. In general I have no problem with Sword being
GPL.
If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/inform
I have a question about the Sword license.
From what I see the source code is GPL. In many instances I have no
problem with the GPL. In general I have no problem with Sword being GPL.
If I read the Sword/JSword source code and from that design/information
write (port would be accurate?) classes
Okay... but my client itself doesn't have to be GPLed? I have to make
the source available under one of the compatible licenses.
And I don't need to write "GPL" all over my software, right? If the
source is available under GPL, do the binaries have to state that?
Just curious about this stuff
Ahh... okay. I was thinking of LGPL (Lesser GPL), which from looking
at the Sword license page, it clearly is not. So basically I have to
GPL my client if I use the Sword API. I don't really have a problem
with releasing my source code, I just need to get the right license
information with th
> My Look up app for OS X certainly isn't ready for public consumption.
> Part of that is getting the right license information and stuff
> bundled with the program.
>
> If I understand correctly, GPL allows me to do what I want with the
> client I'm writing - I can Copyright it to myself, ke
At 03:17 PM 4/1/2002 -0700, Nathan wrote:
>...
>If I understand correctly, GPL allows me to do what I want with the client
>I'm writing - I can Copyright it to myself, keep my source to myself, and
>even commercialize it. But if I modify the API, I need to submit those
>changes back. Or am I th
My Look up app for OS X certainly isn't ready for public consumption.
Part of that is getting the right license information and stuff
bundled with the program.
If I understand correctly, GPL allows me to do what I want with the
client I'm writing - I can Copyright it to myself, keep my source
38 matches
Mail list logo
