* I have no awareness of what is involved in applying for "front-end status" for software such as LcdBible.
A front-end is a matter of function, not certification. A GUI that allows users to use The SWORD Project code to access SWORD modules would be a type of SWORD front-end. Non-GUI programs to that do that would also be front-ends.
* I would appreciate input as to whether there are licenses that might not be as onerous as GPL? I have no problem with open source, but do have some (uninformed) concerns about the "GPL-virus" issue?
If you have not read the GPL license I suggest you do so. Then take some time to visit web sites where issues about GPL are answered by people who know it well, and read in their FAQs and archives. In my opinion the "GPL-virus" issue only exists in the minds of people that want to use that label. The argument went something like this: party A has proprietary code, party B has GPL code, and party C uses both A's code and B's code in C's code, so party A's code now becomes GPL. That will not happen. If C publishes the code without the consent of A it is a copyright violation and if C represents A's code as GPL, even if C has permission to use it, it is fraud if A never allowed for it to be GPL. A's code can not become GPL just because someone else contaminated it with some GPL code.
However, that proprietary code of A's can become GPL if A adds GPL code to it and by doing so agrees to and becomes subject to the GPL license. But A has similar problems with adding any other party's proprietary code. If he does he must get, and agree to, a license from the other proprietary party. And any party that wants to uses A's proprietary code will have to have license from A and all those A needed licenses from. So, if you want to call GPL viral then you should call most proprietary code viral also.
Just my opinions.
Jerry
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
