Chris Little wrote:
Ok. With this understanding I will proceed forward as I can.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 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 copyright. At the very most this would come under fair use as a reference for a similar but not derivative work. (If you were to copy the C++ code into Java classes then Java-ize it enough to compile, that would be a derivative work and require GPL licensing, but I suspect Smalltalk will require sufficient changes that you need to do a complete re-write.)
But I will either find or modify a license for this which contains the spirit of the GPL but is not viral to the entire Squeak image.
I do not have a problem with trying to protect Crosswire's/Sword's interest in this matter. I very much want an open Bible software.
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 affect using the libraries via FFI in Squeak?
Understood. I am not really to my understanding, not looking for a more free license. Only one which doesn't affect the rest of the Squeak environment. I don't believe the email program, web browser, mp3 player, solitaire game, etc. all inside of the Squeak image should become GPL simply because I am writing a Sword frontend.I hate to contribute to the proliferation of licenses. But is Crosswire open to such a variance for image based systems like Smalltalk?There is very little possibility at this time that CrossWire would consider a more free license, if that were an option to us. We've got enough problems with people abusing the license and creating derivative works with no changes other than to put their own ad banners in and replace the about box credits their their own names. We also don't feel much need to provide a mechanism for others' commercial exploitation of Sword or ability to develop extensions incompatible with our work then lock us out of those extensions. But the simple fact at the moment is that we use GPL code in Sword for which we do not own the copyright, so we can't legally dual license. (Not that I wouldn't appreciate getting rid of such code and limiting our use of others' code to BSD licensed work so that we can license closed development in select situations.)
ie: a dual license? I do not necessarily no which license would be most appropriate for Crosswire. The Squeak License makes no obligations for use of source. It is more close to the MIT or BSD licenses.
I do not desire to open a door for commercial exploitation of Sword.
Which is why I would similarly license my work but in a Squeak/Smalltalk friendly manner.
Thanks for your help.
Jimmie Houchin
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
