On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:24:19PM -0700, Lynn Allan wrote:
> Martin G. wrote:
> >>> you are required to release it under the GPL since you copied source
> code
> >>> from Sword (e.g. rawverse.cpp) and mention crosswire as the copyright
> holder
> >>> of that code.
>
> Lynn wrote:
> > > I am not c
Lynn Allan wrote:
The LcdBible software is now licensed as GPL on sourceforge.net.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lcdbible
Looks good. Thanks, Lynn.
I believe it was *almost* eligible to be a "Sword-frontend" because it uses
the sword-api to access verses from ./sword/modules/texts/rawtext/*.*
(
On Monday 15 December 2003 12:53 pm, Lynn Allan wrote:
> The LcdBible software is now licensed as GPL on sourceforge.net.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/lcdbible
>
> I believe it was *almost* eligible to be a "Sword-frontend" because it uses
> the sword-api to access verses from ./sword/modules/
I agree that this project needs to stay under the GPL. After all, this
project has always been about glorifying God and spreading His Word. It
has never been about greed and fear. There are too many individuals and
organizations who have merchandised the Lord's Word over the years.
And, if some
At 06:24 PM 12/14/2003, Rev. Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
I stand corrected. A commercial project may not be derived from or link to
GPL code and still be a commercial project, but it may use separate (not
linked) GPL components.
I think you are confusing "commercial" and "proprietary." GPL is n
Chris Little said:
> 2) We would not change our license. You've apparently got problems with
> the GPL. I encourage you to get over them, and, if you really can't,
> to move on. We've had contributions from possibly over a hundred
> developers over the years, who contributed their code and oth
At 09:56 PM 12/14/2003, Lynn Allan wrote:
I think people are missing the point of
my original eMail: what is Biblical guidance on this question? WWJD?
Jesus didn't always do a thing the same way each time. Take healing, He
healed by command, touch and by mixing spit with dirt. There may not be
My uninformed impression is that many GPL projects tend to be ok with
"compatible licenses" and/or less restrictive use of libraries. The SWORD
Project doesn't seem to be. - i.a.n.a.l.- They certainly have that right.
Some projects get things wrong. I would look to what GPL says and not how
some
Lynn Allan wrote:
The LcdBible software is also an open source sourceforge.net project using
the Mozilla 1.1 license. My impression is that Mozilla 1.1 is GPL compatible
based on section 13 (whatever that means). Mozilla 1.0 is not GPL
compatible. I have read the entire gpl faq, but ianal.
http:/
On Sunday 14 December 2003 08:56 pm, Lynn Allan wrote:
> Philippians 1:12-18 seems, to me, to strongly indicate we shouldn't care
> whether this does or doesn't happen. I think people are missing the point
> of my original eMail: what is Biblical guidance on this question? WWJD?
I dont really care
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:24, Rev. Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
>> A commercial project is quite at liberty to include GPLed code,
>> providing that any derivatives are also GPLed.
> Yes, but then it is not "commercial." [...] I mean that it is
> restricted from modification, distribution, and sale ex
At 10:37 15-12-03, Leon Brooks wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:07, Rev.
Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
> A commercial project can use PD code or LGPL code, but it
> cannot use GPL code.
False. Many of them do, the classic example being Microsoft's Services
For Unix (SFU), which includes not just GPLe
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:07, Rev. Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
> A commercial project can use PD code or LGPL code, but it
> cannot use GPL code.
False. Many of them do, the classic example being Microsoft's Services
For Unix (SFU), which includes not just GPLed code but the GNU Compiler
Collection
At 09:26 15-12-03, Chris Little wrote:
Rev. Michael Paul Johnson
wrote:
At 06:58 15-12-03, Chris Little
wrote:
...
PD is anti-"IP". It destroys an idea's economic value
(but certainly not its intellectual value) by making it free to
all. And what's more, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! (disclaimer: PD i
Rev. Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
At 06:58 15-12-03, Chris Little wrote:
...
PD is anti-"IP". It destroys an idea's economic value (but certainly not its
intellectual value) by making it free to all. And what's more, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
(disclaimer: PD is only unconstitutional if you reside
At 06:58 15-12-03, Chris Little wrote:
...In the simplest terms:
>1) We cannot legally change our license right now. We use code owned by the Free
>Software Foundation that is GPL licensed. Changing the licenses is not an option.
This much is true. That is part of the beauty of the GPL, and the
Lynn Allan wrote:
Before the scars of the recent GPL thread have faded from memory, it would
perhaps be appropriate to discuss the underlying issue.
I'm not sure what you hope to gain by digging into this again. Asking
once just indicates unfamiliarity. Asking twice indicates we lacked
clarit
17 matches
Mail list logo
