Jonathan Morgan wrote:
It is not backward, it is a pure statement of facts, which you can
find quite clearly in the GPL v2 FAQ
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense>.
You need to look at the question immediately following the one you link.
I'll quote:
Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
That couldn't be any more clear. Putting it into concrete terms, Sword
is a library. Sword is under the GPL. And front end to Sword is a
"program which uses it". Thus, any front end to Sword must be under the GPL.
If I can add a module to a library (or a "plugin" for that matter)
which is not GPL licensed but GPL compatible, of course I can create
an entire frontend that is GPL compatible but not GPL licensed.
You may add a module to a library that is GPL compatible, but not GPL
licensed, to a GPL work. But the reverse is not permissible: You may not
add a GPL work to a non GPL (be it GPL compatible or not) work. That's
simply not permitted by the license.
Fundamentally, the GPL cannot require you to do anything more than are
in its terms of license, which is that changes are distributed in
accordance with the license. You have complete and sole ownership of
those changes or of that "derivative work", but if you distribute it
they must be distributed in a way that satisfies the terms of the GPL.
No, you have complete and sole ownership of those changes *only*. The
complete, derivative work is owned jointly between you and the author of
the original work from which yours is a derivative. For information
about derivative works (including definitions, rights, & limitations)
you'll want to consult the Copyright Act (US Code Title 17). This
pertains since the GPL is couched in terms of copyright.
As I have complete ownership of those changes, I can release them
under any terms I like that do not conflict with the GPL. I can grant
any additional permissions I like (such as releasing under a MIT
license or into the public domain). This doesn't require legalese, it
just requires a knowledge of ownership and what I can do with things
that I own.
You have sole ownership of additions, provided that they are not
derivative works and do not in any way depend on the pre-existence of
Sword (in this case).
If you write a front end to Sword and include a subroutine that converts
between roman numerals and latin digits, the front end is a work
derivative of Sword and must be licensed under the GPL. At your option,
you could certainly extract the roman numeral subroutine and release
that separately under any license--that portion has no dependence on
Sword and was not derived from it.
Works derivative of Sword include any works that link to Sword via any
means (direct static linking or runtime linking, including via non-C
bindings).
Oh, BTW, BPBible does not link with the header files, though I think
it is still reasonable to call it a derivative work under the terms of
the GPL.
Under copyright law, it is a derivative work.
The whole GPL discussion is one that pops up about once a year on
sword-devel, and it's really just a distraction from real work. If you
have further questions about the GPL, you can contact the FSF at
licens...@fsf.org. They can confirm my statements.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
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
