Does anyone know whether STEP Bible uses JSword as is, or a modified form of
JSword ?
Asking in view of Arnaud’s observation about LGPL.
Kind regards,
David
Sent from [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) for iOS
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 14:32, Arnaud Vié <[unas.zole+a...@gmail.com](mailto:On
Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 14:32, Arnaud Vié <<a href=)> wrote:
> It might be a silly question, but can't we just consider changing the
> libsword license to something more permissive to allow such use cases,
> without overthinking about GPL compatibility issues ?
> It is quite uncommon for open source libraries to use GPL nowadays, as it's
> very restrictive by nature. GPL remains mostly for "complete" applications -
> libraries tend to rather use LGPL, Apache 2.0 or MIT license (depending on
> the level of protection they seek), to favour wide usability.
>
> It is to be noted that JSword is published under LGPL, which allows other
> apps to use it without constraints as long as it's not being modified.
> It would be enough for the current use case, and it would make sense for
> libsword and jsword to be aligned.
> Personally speaking, I'd favour something more permissive like the Apache 2.0
> license, which basically allows any usage or modification of any kind, but
> requires people to preserve the initial copyright notice and notify of
> significant changes.
> Of course, publishing under a new license can only be done by the current
> rights holder, which according to the libsword LICENSE is the "CrossWire
> Bible Society", as an organisation.
> Does Troy have the full power of decision on the topic ?
> Troy, what do you think of publishing libsword under a more permissive
> license ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Arnaud
>
> Le lun. 30 juin 2025 à 14:43, Matěj Cepl < mc...@cepl.eu> a écrit :
>
>> On Mon Jun 30, 2025 at 4:55 AM CEST, Aaron Rainbolt wrote:
>>> From what I understand as someone who isn't a lawyer but has done
>>> licensing audits for applications in Ubuntu and Debian, you'll only
>>> run into issues if you publish *built binaries* of your code.
>>
>> That technically may be true, but it is a stupid idea. You don’t
>> do open source software, which nobody can package and distribute.
>>
>> And apparently FSF doesn’t agree with my analysis:
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
>>
>> So, my only advice is to relicense your new program under GPLv2
>> and send FSF to … Apparently, you will be in the distinguished
>> company of Linus Torvalds and many others.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Matěj
>>
>> --
>> http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, @mc...@en.osm.town
>> GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8
>>
>> For those of you who think we are descendents from those cavemen
>> who stood and fought with dinosaurs, you must be nuts, we are
>> descendents from the ones who ran like hell to live.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
>> http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
