Sorry for all the typos and 'top-posting', but I'm at work so this will also be a quick comment.
1) I had thought I removed all the 'or later versions' from all the files a few years back, as it seemed too open-ended. 2) Jason Galyon pointed out the possibility of companies asking us for a special license. We advertise on our website our willingness to do this in certain circumstances. 3) To facilitate #2, CrossWire has always had a transfer of ownership policy for our base repository of code. All code in our repository is (C) CrossWire Bible Society under terms of the GPL, instead of "(C) by various authors of this code". Without requiring tranfer of ownership it would make it impractical to say we could offer other licensing options or even that we could change the licensing in the future. If transfer of ownership policy scares you, remember that you don't give up your ownership of your own code, you merely give CrossWire full ownership priviledges, as well. -Troy. "Troy A. Griffitts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Well, because we have to answer the support emails, e.g. "I purchases >your >software and it doesn't work" from many unfortunate ThinkAll consumers. >Though I agree with Chris that we likely only want to add restrictions to >BibleCS if do decide to go that route. > >Eeli Kaikkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Chris Little wrote: >>> Whether the license would still result in free software would depend on >>> the actual license terms. Of the three examples I listed, only the >>> second, if written as an explicit prohibition on the "freedom" to embed >>> adware, would result in non-free software. The others are entirely >>> permissible in free software, at least as defined by Debian. >>> >>> I think I'd also add a requirement that distributors notify users that >>> the software is free and include attribution and a link to CrossWire. >> >>These terms (except the second one), or something like these, seem to be >>possible under GPL 3 (see section 7). I strongly advice against anything >>which is incompatible with GPL. >> >>I cannot be sure but I think that someone who is willing to circumvent >>the GPL 2 or 3 licence would do the same thing with any licence as long >>as the source code is available and he can modify the program. >> >>Usually extra restrictions and rules hurt only those who obey the rules, >>not those who break them. >> >>Also, Rom. 12:19-20. >> >>Any of us don't actually loose anything even if someone sells our >>software illegally. Why should we then be bitter when we know that he is >>responsible in front of God the Judge? >> >> Yours, >> Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland >> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (with no x) >> >>_______________________________________________ >>sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org >>http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel >>Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org >http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel >Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
