There's a rather extensive FAQ available on the GNU site that tries to clarify exactly what the GPL does and does not mean (in the eyes of the FSF, at least.)
Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>In particular, it is quite explicit about the implications of linking a GPL'd library (like Sword) into an application (statically or dynamically): the application must be released under the GPL. This is addressed directly in following locations:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingWithGPL> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesCompatMean> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLIncompatibleAlone>
When you release a program that combines someone else's GPL code with non-GPL code, the non-GPL code must have been obtained under a GPL-compatible license; the combined code, however, can only be released under the GPL. It cannot work the other way - if you acquire a piece of code that's under the GPL, you can never release it as part of a BSD-licensed program (for example).
In any case, it would seem that ordinary courtesy should lead you not to use someone else's code (the product of their talents and labor, not yours) in a way that they don't want you to use it, regardless of the presence of a legally enforceable license. While I might expect that idea to be laughed at in general society, I would have hoped that anyone trying to spread the word of God would take it for granted.
Hoping to shed light, rather than add heat...
Tom Pollard
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
