Yes, we have been through this before. The answer we have got from the FSF is that GPL compatible licenses are OK for *all* code of frontends using the library, but of course the whole thing has to operate under the GPLv2 (so you can't get round GPL restrictions by using a compatible license on the frontend).
Just out of curiosity, what GPLv2 only non-crosswire code is there? I can't see any with a quick look. God Bless, Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. Giôên 3:14 (ESV) On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Famile von Kaehne <ref...@gmx.net> wrote: > Greg, > > > We have been on teh mailing list through this discussion already a few > dozen of times. > > > If you write GUI code for _a_ bible programme and then go looking for a > suitable backend, + decide to go for libsword your initial independent > GUI code may be under any licence you see fit as long as it is GPL > compatible, your glue code must be GPL and the overall application must > be GPL. The best example within the fold of sword related programmes is > LCD Bible. The guy who wrote it republished his GUI with a couple of > other backends and some of these are not GPL but closed source. His > originl fronend code may be under whatever license, but he needed to > relicence everything as GPL prior to publishing. > > > If you start out with libsword and build your code upon that then you > start out under GPL and continue. If you end up incorporating > pre-existing code from something else, then this (as above) may be under > any other GPL compatible license and the overall final product will be > again GPL. > > > There are a few outlying cases which have been raised a few times and a > couple of people suggested ingenuous sever/client constructions which > they felt would allow them to bypass the overall GPL but thgese are the > exceptions (which might not even apply if you set a lawyer onto it. > > > The main confusing aspect is "GPL compatible". This can mean two things > > > a) a license which is free enough to allow code under it be incorporated > into GPL code. > > > b) a license which states the same as the GPL but uses other words. > > > Latter practically does not exist, but lingers in people's minds and > confuses the issues. Former are BSD amd MIT style free licenses or > indeed public domain code. The "compatibility" is a one way street. I > can incorporate BSD/MIT/PD code into my GPL programme but I can not > incorporate GPL code into my BSD programme without licensing the lot as > a GPL programme. > > > With regard to GPL 2 vs 3 - again this has been raised a few times. The > FSF is pushing GPL 3, but for us this is no option as some of the code > we use is GPL vs 2 only. GPL v2 and v3 are not compatible. > > > yours in him > > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > 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
