On Mar 16, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Ben Morgan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Little
<chris...@crosswire.org> wrote:
Ben Morgan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mmital <mital.m...@gmail.com <mailto:mital.m...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
Hi,
As Chris pointed out, all front-ends *have* to use GPL v2. So the
public domain door is closed for me.
The license for a front end has to be GPL v2 compatible. Not GPL v2
necessarily.
This is completely incorrect (more specifically backwards). To say
that a license is GPL compatible means that code licensed under that
license may be incorporated in/used by GPL licensed software. Code
that is GPL licensed may only be used within code that is likewise
GPL licensed. (This is the whole "viral" nature of the GPL.)
I thought it was the whole glob of the application that had to be
able to be licensed under the GPL? An individual component of my
application can be released under another license.
The GPL is viral in so far that it is used directly. So if you need to
have the headers in order to compile, then the code is now infected
with the GPL.
A plugin architecture works around that. As far as I know that is the
only loophole.
So if I find that a non-GPL program (open or closed source) has a
plugin architecture and I write a plugin using GPL code, that plugin
is GPL. What it plugs into does not become GPLed.
In Him,
DM
_______________________________________________
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
