[sword-devel] GPL 3 licencing issues

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Sword library source code has some licencing issues. Different files
have different licence statements. They should be reviewed and
corrected.

The problem is mostly theoretical because nobody really cares - the
library is under GPL and that's that. But there may arise issues later
with GPL 3. Some of you may already know that GPL 2 and 3 are NOT
compatible. That may sound weird but that's how it is. The only thing
which makes them compatible is the copyright notice which is not part of
the licence. If it reads "relased under GPL v 2 or later" it's
compatible. If it reads "released under GPL" it is unclear. If it reads
"released under GPL; see the attached licence" and the GPL v 2 is
attached it is technically GPL 2 only and not compatible with version 3.

Inside Crosswire this is not important because we don't sue ourselves
because of inconsistency. But if and when we use other libraries inside
Sword library and when the frontend projects use many different
libraries this may become an issue.

Most probably we want the Sword licence to be "under GPL v. 2 or any
later version" to secure the widest compatibility possible. Even after
that the library or the frontends can not use two libraries of which one
is under GPL2 only and the other GPL3 only.

Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

[keith preston]

Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was licensed
under the GPL license. Is there a specific purpose for being specifically
GPL? To me if would be benifical for the library to be LGPL or a less
restrictive license. I mean the purpose of the code is to make the bible
available and is specifically designed in that respect. I believe the GPL
restricts use of this purpose.

For example, say I am a commercial company and I put out a device and
publish an api to my UI. Some random hacker comes around and implements a
sword program with that API and distribute the program freely. This
generally is only possible if the company decided to open source their
entire UI, which frequently might not be the case. In fact, the GPL
restricts what components can be linked into a program.

There are probably more issues then I am thinking of here, but to me I would
give the code away and hope people used it to make the bible available to
more people.

Keith Preston

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
Sword library source code has some licencing issues. Different files
have different licence statements. They should be reviewed and
corrected.
The problem is mostly theoretical because nobody really cares - the
library is under GPL and that's that. But there may arise issues later
with GPL 3. Some of you may already know that GPL 2 and 3 are NOT
compatible. That may sound weird but that's how it is. The only thing
which makes them compatible is the copyright notice which is not part of
the licence. If it reads "relased under GPL v 2 or later" it's
compatible. If it reads "released under GPL" it is unclear. If it reads
"released under GPL; see the attached licence" and the GPL v 2 is
attached it is technically GPL 2 only and not compatible with version 3.
Inside Crosswire this is not important because we don't sue ourselves
because of inconsistency. But if and when we use other libraries inside
Sword library and when the frontend projects use many different
libraries this may become an issue.
Most probably we want the Sword licence to be "under GPL v. 2 or any
later version" to secure the widest compatibility possible. Even after
that the library or the frontends can not use two libraries of which one
is under GPL2 only and the other GPL3 only.
Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20070716/84279d3d/attachment.html

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Post by keith preston
Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was licensed
under the GPL license.

Personally I also like less restrictive licencies. However, I understand
that there are different situations which call different licencies.

If Sword were published under LGPL it would soon be adopted into
freeware and commercial programs. It's highly probable that we wouldn't
get anything from that. It would be useful if they gave back some
code contributions or helped us with module licencing issues, but I
think that would not happen.

Commercial developers already have enough resources without our library.
And if someone wants to code software to spread the Word of God it's
already possible with Free Software. It's even possible to ask donations
and thereby get some money out of the software.

Using GPL is kind of a fair trade: you can use our code, we can use
yours. I don't see why Bible software should be closed source or why we
should help others make closed source Bible software.

Therefore, though I prefer LGPL or even BSD and could have decided to
use them if I had started this project, GPL is enough for me here and
now.

Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

[Jason Galyon]

There is always the possibility of dual licensing. A company could
obtain special permission to use a less restrictive license given that
certain requirements are met.

I personally have long been a supporter of the "ransom" model. When a
certain amount of time or income has been met the source is then made
available under an Open Source license.

Plus there are many non GPL products out there that have plenty of
contributions made from companies. My company contributes code and
other components (not our main product though).

Jason

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen

Post by keith preston
Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was licensed
under the GPL license.

Personally I also like less restrictive licencies. However, I understand
that there are different situations which call different licencies.
If Sword were published under LGPL it would soon be adopted into
freeware and commercial programs. It's highly probable that we wouldn't
get anything from that. It would be useful if they gave back some
code contributions or helped us with module licencing issues, but I
think that would not happen.
Commercial developers already have enough resources without our library.
And if someone wants to code software to spread the Word of God it's
already possible with Free Software. It's even possible to ask donations
and thereby get some money out of the software.
Using GPL is kind of a fair trade: you can use our code, we can use
yours. I don't see why Bible software should be closed source or why we
should help others make closed source Bible software.
Therefore, though I prefer LGPL or even BSD and could have decided to
use them if I had started this project, GPL is enough for me here and
now.
Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

[Chris Little]

Post by keith preston
Speaking of licensing issues, I've always wondered why Sword was
licensed under the GPL license. Is there a specific purpose for being
specifically GPL? To me if would be benifical for the library to be
LGPL or a less restrictive license. I mean the purpose of the code is
to make the bible available and is specifically designed in that
respect. I believe the GPL restricts use of this purpose.

I think generally we're of the opinion that it would be best if Sword
remained free software--and that includes both the library and the
frontends, as well as some of the Sword-related tools.

We want our software to be used, both by developers and end-users. But
we don't want our years of work to be adopted by developers who just
want to make a buck off of our work without any compensation. By using
the GPL, developers have to repay us in kind by giving us the same
rights to their work as they give to us. As a result, when we want to
extend their work, we can. When they retire from development, their
projects can continue to be developed, etc.

Post by keith preston
For example, say I am a commercial company and I put out a device and
publish an api to my UI. Some random hacker comes around and
implements a sword program with that API and distribute the program
freely. This generally is only possible if the company decided to
open source their entire UI, which frequently might not be the case. In
fact, the GPL restricts what components can be linked into a program.

This is, I believe, a pretty common misunderstanding about the GPL,
which would in no way restrict this sort of development.

OS libraries can be linked by GPL software without being under a
GPL-compatible license. That's stated by the license. We use the Win32
API and various components and APIs from Borland--none of which are open
sourced.

A hypothetical program to be developed by a hypothetical developer for a
hypothetical device isn't the most compelling argument for giving our
software away to commercial developers for free.

--Chris

[keith preston]

Post by Chris Little
I think generally we're of the opinion that it would be best if Sword
remained free software--and that includes both the library and the
frontends, as well as some of the Sword-related tools.

We want our software to be used, both by developers and end-users. But

Post by Chris Little
we don't want our years of work to be adopted by developers who just
want to make a buck off of our work without any compensation. By using
the GPL, developers have to repay us in kind by giving us the same
rights to their work as they give to us. As a result, when we want to
extend their work, we can. When they retire from development, their
projects can continue to be developed, etc.

Cool, I see your point. I'm not trying to advocate a change, just wondering
the reasoning behind the license. Thanks for the Info and keep up the good
work.

Keith Preston
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20070716/f8c643dd/attachment.html

[Chris Little]

It's probably time we (or maybe just Troy) decided how we feel about
GPL3. The final version does seem to have addressed the more onerous
issues of the drafts and there are enough significant GPL2 projects
changing over to GPL3 that I would feel comfortable with Sword doing
likewise.

I think we should drop the "or any later version" language from all of
the files that CrossWire owns, and change everything to specific license
versions.

If we did go the GPL3 route, we should probably dual license under GPL2
and GPL3 for at least a few years so as not to force front-end
developers to change licenses (at least not yet).

Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
our software that we've seen in the past: restrictions against changing
the software title to hide its identity, restrictions against embedding
ad banners, a requirement that CrossWire be notified prior to
distribution of derivative works, etc.

--Chris

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
Sword library source code has some licencing issues. Different files
have different licence statements. They should be reviewed and
corrected.
The problem is mostly theoretical because nobody really cares - the
library is under GPL and that's that. But there may arise issues later
with GPL 3. Some of you may already know that GPL 2 and 3 are NOT
compatible. That may sound weird but that's how it is. The only thing
which makes them compatible is the copyright notice which is not part of
the licence. If it reads "relased under GPL v 2 or later" it's
compatible. If it reads "released under GPL" it is unclear. If it reads
"released under GPL; see the attached licence" and the GPL v 2 is
attached it is technically GPL 2 only and not compatible with version 3.
Inside Crosswire this is not important because we don't sue ourselves
because of inconsistency. But if and when we use other libraries inside
Sword library and when the frontend projects use many different
libraries this may become an issue.
Most probably we want the Sword licence to be "under GPL v. 2 or any
later version" to secure the widest compatibility possible. Even after
that the library or the frontends can not use two libraries of which one
is under GPL2 only and the other GPL3 only.
Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Post by Chris Little
Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
our software that we've seen in the past: restrictions against changing
the software title to hide its identity, restrictions against embedding
ad banners, a requirement that CrossWire be notified prior to
distribution of derivative works, etc.

That would be a very bad idea. It would make Sword non-Free and would
prohibit Linux distros like Debian distributing it. I definitely would
stop developing BibleTime (and other Sword related software) after that.

Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

[Chris Little]

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen

Post by Chris Little
Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of
our software that we've seen in the past: restrictions against changing
the software title to hide its identity, restrictions against embedding
ad banners, a requirement that CrossWire be notified prior to
distribution of derivative works, etc.

That would be a very bad idea. It would make Sword non-Free and would
prohibit Linux distros like Debian distributing it. I definitely would
stop developing BibleTime (and other Sword related software) after that.

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.

--Chris

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Post by Chris Little
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: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

[Chris Little]

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
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?

I'm not looking to get a cut of the profits for myself or Troy or
CrossWire or anything like that. And it's not that I would fight against
someone selling the software if they obeyed the license and were
forthcoming about its identity. But I do have issues with people who
hide the fact that our software is free to download and hide the fact
that we made it, as with ThinkAll, who slapped a $60 "retail" price on
BibleCS. I guess I'm bitter about our users being ripped off.

Also, historically, the two groups who distributed Sword illegally
and/or against our wishes never updated their work. So they kept
distributing work that was 1-2 versions behind. If we can prevent that,
it's a service to our users.

--Chris

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Post by Chris Little

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
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?

I'm not looking to get a cut of the profits for myself or Troy or
CrossWire or anything like that. And it's not that I would fight against
someone selling the software if they obeyed the license and were
forthcoming about its identity. But I do have issues with people who
hide the fact that our software is free to download and hide the fact
that we made it, as with ThinkAll, who slapped a $60 "retail" price on
BibleCS. I guess I'm bitter about our users being ripped off.
Also, historically, the two groups who distributed Sword illegally
and/or against our wishes never updated their work. So they kept
distributing work that was 1-2 versions behind. If we can prevent that,
it's a service to our users.

I must say I agree with you. But still I doubt if changing the licence
is the right way to prevent abuse.

If those people sold the software illegally, why would different licence
stop them? If they didn't understand the licence and our wishes, we
could make these things clear in the copyright statement (now it just
states something like "this is free software, see GPL etc." I guess). If
they are not programmers we could add so clear copyright and "THIS
PROGRAM IS FREE" statements into the interactive user interface that
those "freeriders" wouldn't dare to sell it to ignorant users.

If they sell the software illegally against the licence, i.e. not giving
the source code and hiding the free origins, we should take actions, not
change the licence. I think that even GPL 2, not mentioning 3, makes it
clear enough that the origin of the software, the freedom of it, the
licence, and the source code must NOT be hidden. If there is any doubt
about that we could even ask from FSF. We could also tell the situation
to them and ask what would be the strongest possible restrictions under
GPL3 section 7 which still would be GPL3 compatible.

Can someone tell exactly how those thieves acted?

Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

[jhphx]

Post by Chris Little
Another option is to write a GPL (2 or 3) derivative license that adds
some additional restrictions ...

Can you include work released under 2 or 3 that was licensed without the
additional restrictions in a work that has the additional restrictions.
I didn't think that kind of thing was allowed. Is that a "compatible"
license? It has been a long time since I have looked at this.

Jerry

[Chris Little]

Post by jhphx
Can you include work released under 2 or 3 that was licensed without the
additional restrictions in a work that has the additional restrictions.
I didn't think that kind of thing was allowed. Is that a "compatible"
license? It has been a long time since I have looked at this.

I'm not sure. I'd have to re-read the GPL, but it would obviously depend
on the actual terms of the modified license. We might have to replace
non-CrossWire GPL code in Sword if we changed the license--which would
not be a big deal.

There's also the possibility of just licensing BibleCS under a modified
license since it's really only the Windows software (BibleCS and Bible
Desktop) that have been or are very likely to be abused by commercial
interests.

--Chris

[Jeremy Erickson]

IANAL, but my understanding is that the GPLv2 only allows code under the GPLv2
(or a license such as BSD/MIT which permits everyhing the GPL does) to be
linked with GPL'd code. The GPLv3 has wording in section 7 to explicitly
allow linking from MIT/BSD/etc., as well as allowing certain restrictions not
normally found in the GPL.

So, my understanding is that if the Sword license gained extra restrictions
like the ones mentioned, it would become illegal to link Sword with GPLv2
code, and probably GPLv3 code as well (for any restriction not in Section 7).
That means that BibleTime 2 on Windows with such a Sword library would be
illegal, because BibleTime 2 will link with Qt 4, which is available only
under the GPL on some platforms (unless we wanted to fork out lots of cash
for a commercial license, which is unrealistic.) Trolltech's license will
not permit us to link Qt with code containing restrictions not in the GPL,
even indirectly (i.e. the same app linking both libraries.) And the GPL
makes it clear that if we allowed full GPL for Sword with respect to
BibleTime, we have to allow full GPL for everything.

I don't think that adding these restrictions is an option without killing off
BibleTime, which is obviously not a good option.

Although I personally like simple permissive licenses for many projects, my
personal opinion is that a GPLv2/GPLv3 dual-license would be the most
appropriate option for Sword. This allows the maximum usage of Sword by free
software while nonetheless preventing proprietary software from using it.
However, it's ultimately not my decision. I will respect whatever decision
is made (just don't kill BibleTime.)

-Jeremy Erickson

Post by Chris Little

Post by jhphx
Can you include work released under 2 or 3 that was licensed without the
additional restrictions in a work that has the additional restrictions.
I didn't think that kind of thing was allowed. Is that a "compatible"
license? It has been a long time since I have looked at this.

I'm not sure. I'd have to re-read the GPL, but it would obviously depend
on the actual terms of the modified license. We might have to replace
non-CrossWire GPL code in Sword if we changed the license--which would
not be a big deal.
There's also the possibility of just licensing BibleCS under a modified
license since it's really only the Windows software (BibleCS and Bible
Desktop) that have been or are very likely to be abused by commercial
interests.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Post by Jeremy Erickson
That means that BibleTime 2 on Windows with such a Sword library would be
illegal, because BibleTime 2 will link with Qt 4, which is available only
under the GPL on some platforms (unless we wanted to fork out lots of cash
for a commercial license, which is unrealistic.) Trolltech's license will
not permit us to link Qt with code containing restrictions not in the GPL,
even indirectly (i.e. the same app linking both libraries.)

Actually this article made me write my original message:
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2881
It is about the same question you are talking about.

Post by Jeremy Erickson
I don't think that adding these restrictions is an option without killing off
BibleTime, which is obviously not a good option.

Let's be realistic: for Windows there are already many freely
downloadable Bible study applications. BibleCS is not even one of the
best. If BibleCS and BibleDesktop disappeared people could just start
using other programs, like e-sword.

But for Linux BibleTime, GnomeSword (and BibleDesktop) are the only
options - at least I don't know any other. Making those programs
unavailable would really hurt many people because they wouldn't have
possibility to read the Bible with a computer.

This becomes even more important if Linux user base grows in the third
world. Just like with paper Bibles, we are blessed with abundancy, but
there are millions of persons who can't afford even one. We are declined
to think about NIV etc. as very important and I also think they are -
but only if we are thinking about our user base in Western countries.


Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

[Martin Gruner]

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
This becomes even more important if Linux user base grows in the third
world. Just like with paper Bibles, we are blessed with abundancy, but
there are millions of persons who can't afford even one. We are declined
to think about NIV etc. as very important and I also think they are -
but only if we are thinking about our user base in Western countries.

I feel the same.

mg

[jonathon]

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
If BibleCS and BibleDesktop disappeared people could just start
using other programs, like e-sword.

People might not even notice that they had disappeared from
Windows. There are a plethora of free (gratis) Bible Study
programs, and almost as many commercially distributed programs.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
But for Linux BibleTime, GnomeSword (and BibleDesktop) are the only
options - at least I don't know any other.

If there are any others, they haven't made it into any of
the Linux distributions. [With three Linux distributions
orientated towards Christians,I'd expect any others to be in
at least one of them.]

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
This becomes even more important if Linux user base grows in the third world.

Imagine your preacher having a KJV that did not contain a
concordance, cross references, or any textual apparatus.
Change the translation, and you are describing the standard
Bible for minority languages everywhere.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
but only if we are thinking about our user base in Western countries.

+1

How many people realize that the study tools included in
GnomeSword are more comprehensive than the tools that Bible
College graduates in some third world countries own?

#########

The other issues are:

* What will happen to the programs for the various PDA
platforms?

* What are the odds of a vendor hijacking a PDA version into
a commercial program?

########

Does anybody have a list of Bible Study Software that is
distributed under the GNU GPL, or other Open Source Licence?

xan

jonathon

[jonathon]

Post by Chris Little
some additional restrictions to prevent some of the commercial abuses of

a) Have those commercial abusers violated the GNU GPL.
If so, what action was taken against them?

b) The advantage of GPL 3.0, is that it more clearly
delineates that a license violation is a copyright
violation, and as such, statutory damages can be applied.

xan

jonathon

[Troy A. Griffitts]

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.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen

Post by Chris Little
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: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

[Daniel Glassey]

Post by Troy A. Griffitts
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.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen

Post by Chris Little
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.

It might be a good idea to dual-license the library - under the GPL
(whichever version), and under the specific 'anti-thinkall' licence.
Then BibleCS could be released only under the 'anti-thinkall' license.
And the other frontends could continue to be GPL.

Regards,
Daniel (who is catching up slowly on the list)

[Troy A. Griffitts]

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.

Post by Troy A. Griffitts
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.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen

Post by Chris Little
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: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at 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 at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

[jonathon]

Post by Troy A. Griffitts
scares you, remember that you don't give up your ownership of your own code,
you merely give CrossWire full ownership priviledges, as well.

Can I get a clarification here.

If an organization contributes code to Crosswire, Crosswire
can use it under the GPL 2.0 (or 3.0).

The organization that contributes the code can continue to
use their code under whatever licence the organization
contributing the code distributes their product under.

EG: I write a bible study program, and decide to include a
lectionary. I can contribute the lectionary code to
CrossWire, which will further distribute it under the GPL.
I can continue to distribute my Bible study program, under
whatever licence I have chosen.

Or have I misunderstood something?

xan

jonathon

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Jonathon,

Yes, you are correct. If your organization decides to contribute code to
CrossWire, you grant CrossWire full ownership rights to the contribution.
This effectively lets CrossWire do whatever they want with it. If they
decide to grant, say, the United Bible Societies permission to use the code
in a project like, say, Fieldworks, even though Fieldworks is currently not
opensource, then CrossWire has that perogative.

Granting CrossWire full ownership rights of your contribution does not take
away your full ownership rights to do whatever you choose with your code.
Your organization can release your code under whatever license you wish.

-Troy.

Post by jonathon

Post by Troy A. Griffitts
scares you, remember that you don't give up your ownership of your own

code,

Post by Troy A. Griffitts
you merely give CrossWire full ownership priviledges, as well.

Can I get a clarification here.
If an organization contributes code to Crosswire, Crosswire
can use it under the GPL 2.0 (or 3.0).
The organization that contributes the code can continue to
use their code under whatever licence the organization
contributing the code distributes their product under.
EG: I write a bible study program, and decide to include a
lectionary. I can contribute the lectionary code to
CrossWire, which will further distribute it under the GPL.
I can continue to distribute my Bible study program, under
whatever licence I have chosen.
Or have I misunderstood something?
xan
jonathon
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

[DM Smith]

My opinion (and I may be wrong on any of this).

We should not "upgrade" the license unless we are solving a problem
or need. We have lots of other things to work on.

The licenses should be compared to see what the differences are and
whether it contributes anything. I read v3 a while back (long before
it was finalized) and it appeared to be addressing tivolization,
patent and drm issues, but otherwise looked pretty much the same.
(see Richard Stallman's http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-
gplv3.html for an overview of the differences)

We won't need to upgrade until we want to link with v3 licensed
software.

We would also need to see if other 3-rd party software is compatible
with the upgrade (assuming that it is compatible with v2). For a
complete listing of compatibility see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
license-list.html Note: this is the list for v3. The list for v2 was
different. I don't know what the differences are, but I hear that
Apache (ASF) is compatible with v3 but not v2.

Note the last paragraph that discusses the "or later" phrase. It also
allows the CrossWire model of single ownership. Having "or later"
does not solve the compatibility issue. It merely allows the license
to be upgraded.

The GPL in any version or flavor is *not* a theft deterrent. It is a
legal document, useful for people who care what the license says/
means. Ultimately, as a non-income organization, we have little
recourse beyond prayer and appealing to people to honor the license.

As I read it, It is still a distribution license.

I don't see that the GPL protects software in the following ways:
1) If software is not distributed, then the source does not have to
be either. I think it is an open question whether "software as a
service" constitutes distribution.
2) It does not prevent forking, re-branding or hiding origination.
3) It does not prevent using it as a plug-in in a non-GPL application.

In His Service,
DM

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen
Sword library source code has some licencing issues. Different files
have different licence statements. They should be reviewed and
corrected.
The problem is mostly theoretical because nobody really cares - the
library is under GPL and that's that. But there may arise issues later
with GPL 3. Some of you may already know that GPL 2 and 3 are NOT
compatible. That may sound weird but that's how it is. The only thing
which makes them compatible is the copyright notice which is not part of
the licence. If it reads "relased under GPL v 2 or later" it's
compatible. If it reads "released under GPL" it is unclear. If it reads
"released under GPL; see the attached licence" and the GPL v 2 is
attached it is technically GPL 2 only and not compatible with
version 3.
Inside Crosswire this is not important because we don't sue ourselves
because of inconsistency. But if and when we use other libraries inside
Sword library and when the frontend projects use many different
libraries this may become an issue.
Most probably we want the Sword licence to be "under GPL v. 2 or any
later version" to secure the widest compatibility possible. Even after
that the library or the frontends can not use two libraries of
which one
is under GPL2 only and the other GPL3 only.
Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Post by DM Smith
We should not "upgrade" the license unless we are solving a problem
or need. We have lots of other things to work on.

I agree.

Post by DM Smith
The licenses should be compared to see what the differences are and
whether it contributes anything. I read v3 a while back (long before
it was finalized) and it appeared to be addressing tivolization,
patent and drm issues, but otherwise looked pretty much the same.
(see Richard Stallman's http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-
gplv3.html for an overview of the differences)

Some small changes in wordings may be crucial for some issues. Section 7
in GPL 3 is new and may be crucial for the problems which Chris told
about.

Post by DM Smith
We won't need to upgrade until we want to link with v3 licensed
software.

That's true.

Post by DM Smith
Having "or later"
does not solve the compatibility issue. It merely allows the license
to be upgraded.

I'm not quite sure if I understand. After all it is effectively double
licencing, and has not double licencing been one way to ensure
compatibility with GPL? I mean, a library could be used in a GPL program
if the library is licenced under both GPL and a non-compatible licence.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license.

Post by DM Smith
The GPL in any version or flavor is *not* a theft deterrent. It is a
legal document, useful for people who care what the license says/
means. Ultimately, as a non-income organization, we have little
recourse beyond prayer and appealing to people to honor the license.

And that is one reason why I think changing the licence is a bad idea.
As I said in an earlier post, strict rules hurt good people, not bad
people. Bad people can be hurt only by the Sword of the authorities
(excuse my pun with Rom. 13:1-7).

Post by DM Smith
2) It does not prevent forking, re-branding or hiding origination.

We have to check if the GPL 3 section 7 could prevent hiding
origination.

Post by DM Smith
3) It does not prevent using it as a plug-in in a non-GPL application.

That's true. If someone really wants to use Sword in a closed product
it's possible to make an intermediate low-level frontend which runs in a
separate process and communicates through a pipe. It's completely legal.



Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

[DM Smith]

I just re-read v3 and v2. Ouch, my head hurts. Some of v3, like section
3 just don't make any sense to me. I'm glad I am not a lawyer!

Interestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
install BT or GS via an RPM, I'm not presented with the license.
According to the GPL, it then needs to be available via the program. v3
also stipulates that acceptance of the license is not necessary to use
the software, but is necessary to re-distribute it. The BibleCS and
BibleDesktop windows installers have it as a requirement to install.

v3 also seems to require that a GPL program must make available all
source code necessary to build and make it run, including all 3-rd party
libraries (i.e. Corresponding Source), other than "System Libraries". I
didn't see that in v2, though it may be in there in spirit. I'm not sure
how this would affect us.

See below for other response.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen

Post by DM Smith
Having "or later"
does not solve the compatibility issue. It merely allows the license
to be upgraded.

I'm not quite sure if I understand. After all it is effectively double
licencing, and has not double licencing been one way to ensure
compatibility with GPL? I mean, a library could be used in a GPL program
if the library is licenced under both GPL and a non-compatible licence.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license.

Having re-read v2 and v3, I think that it allows the recipient to use it
under a later version if desired, but not an earlier one. Thus, if it
said v2 or later, it could be combined with v3 licensed code to make a
v3 program. However, if it said v3 or later, then it could not be
combined with v2 code (unless it had the "or later" clause).

Effectively, this would mean that all the 3-rd party code that we use
would have to be compatible with v3 for us to upgrade from v2. So to
upgrade to v3, we would need to know if any products (at least any that
we endorse/support) built from libsword have incompatible 3-rd party
software.

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen

Post by DM Smith
The GPL in any version or flavor is *not* a theft deterrent. It is a
legal document, useful for people who care what the license says/
means. Ultimately, as a non-income organization, we have little
recourse beyond prayer and appealing to people to honor the license.

And that is one reason why I think changing the licence is a bad idea.
As I said in an earlier post, strict rules hurt good people, not bad
people. Bad people can be hurt only by the Sword of the authorities
(excuse my pun with Rom. 13:1-7).

Post by DM Smith
2) It does not prevent forking, re-branding or hiding origination.

We have to check if the GPL 3 section 7 could prevent hiding
origination.

v2 requires that modifications be clearly marked so that changes are not
attributed to the original authors. I did not see a requirement to keep
authorship intact. I don't understand enough about copyright laws to
know whether copyright statements must be kept intact.

v3 allows for the retention of authorship, copyright and legal
statements. But it is necessary to modify the GPL with an addition per
section 7.

[Karl Kleinpaste]

Post by DM Smith
Interestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
install BT or GS via an RPM, I'm not presented with the license.
According to the GPL, it then needs to be available via the program.

In GnomeSword, license is referenced in the last section of the user
manual, which is available in the menu bar via Help->Contents,
incorporated via reference as an appendix in the "GNOME Users Guide."

[David (Mailing List Addy)]

Post by DM Smith
nterestingly, both v2 and v3 require presenting the user with the
license. I don't know if all our applications do this. I know when I
install BT or GS via an RPM, I'm not presented with the license.
According to the GPL, it then needs to be available via the program.

Correct, via the program. I seem to recall the about box being sufficient
according to at least, v2

Post by DM Smith
v3 also seems to require that a GPL program must make available all
source code necessary to build and make it run, including all 3-rd party
libraries (i.e. Corresponding Source), other than "System Libraries". I
didn't see that in v2, though it may be in there in spirit. I'm not sure
how this would affect us.

I don't believe it is in v2 even in spirit. This might be part of the
so-called anti-tiviosation effort. This also might effect the hypothetical
embedded device in another thread depending on what's called a "system
library"

[Peter von Kaehne]

I come late to this issue and as I am not one of the programmers I think I have probably little right to a say on the matter - I will say it anyway.

"GPL v2 or later" is good as it allows widest use.

Any restrictions on the GPL though - regarding rebranding, redistribution notification or further - I think this is wrong.

As others have said there is an abundance of unfree, but cost-free Bible software around.

Crosswire's software not special because it is so good (it is excellent but this is irrelevant for my point) it is special because of its licence.

I am just now negotiating with two groups of non-English publishers regarding translation of BD and incorporation of their material into Crosswire's repositories. Both got very excited when they saw the freedom the GPL offered them - it was news to them that such a licence even existed - all other software they ever dealt with was so heavily restricted that as small publishers in minority languages they had difficulties getting use out of it. E-sword for example can only be distributed from esword's website - making it useless if you have net censorship difficulties.


Wrt Thinkall sofware - do a search on Google and forget about them afterwards - practically every link I opened seemed to describe them as scamsters and that is that. You would not be able to stop scamsters anyway unless you sue them.


If you are really so upset about the possibility (or actuality) of abuse there is always the possibility of making the FFS copyright holders - not sure whether this is something Stallman would be happy about (given that he is AFAIk atheist) but they seem to have a track record of bring GPL abusers to the book.

God bless you all and thanks for the wonderful software!

Peter

[jonathon]

Post by Peter von Kaehne
"GPL v2 or later" is good as it allows widest use.
Both got very excited when they saw the freedom the GPL offered them -

it was news to them that such a licence even existed

a) There are a slew of similar licences. The downside of GPL style
licences is that there is no revenue stream from distribution of the
software. (For GPL 3.0 in particular, the revenue stream is from
providing support services.)

b) Point them to other programs that use GPL style licences. (OOo, for
example, is available for more minority languages than MSO is. The same
thing applies to Linux in comparison to Windows.)

c) Work with those publishers to show how they can use FLOSS to help
their customers.(Here is a Bible study program. Here is an office suite.
Here are tools that will copy material from the Bible Study program into
the office suit, so you can print out your sermon notes.)

Post by Peter von Kaehne
E-sword for example can only be distributed from esword's website -

making it useless if you have net censorship difficulties.

You can redistribute e-Sword provided:
* You do not do so within a commercial context;
* You do not distribute it over the internet;

IOW, you are free to distribute it via CD to third parties. (This is how
it is distributed in a dozen countries in the 10-40 belt.)

I'll also point out that you can negotiate with Rick Meyers on
redistribution of e-Sword within a commercial context. (This is why
Sovereign Press KJV Bibles used to include e-Sword.)

Post by Peter von Kaehne
of making the FFS copyright holders - not sure whether this is something

Stallman would be happy about (given that he is AFAIk atheist) but they
seem to have a track record of bring GPL abusers to the book.

I suspect that Stallman would be more than happy about suing licence
violators of a Bible Study Program. (I can see him quoting Exodus
20:15 and Deuteronomy 5:18 during the proceedings.)

xan

jonathon

[Karl Kleinpaste]

Post by jonathon
IOW, you are free to distribute it via CD to third parties. (This is
how it is distributed in a dozen countries in the 10-40 belt.)

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?

Post by jonathon
I suspect that Stallman would be more than happy about suing licence
violators of a Bible Study Program. (I can see him quoting Exodus
20:15 and Deuteronomy 5:18 during the proceedings.)

I expect you meant Deuteronomy 5:19. :-)

--karl

[DM Smith]

Post by Karl Kleinpaste

Post by jonathon
IOW, you are free to distribute it via CD to third parties. (This is
how it is distributed in a dozen countries in the 10-40 belt.)

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?

10 & 40 refer to latitudes.

There are a huge number of unreached people groups in this region and
for that reason it is the subject of much missionary focus.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20070817/bf0201c8/attachment.html

[jonathon]

Post by Karl Kleinpaste
Pardon my ignorance, but what is "the 10-40 belt"?

It is also called the 10-40 Windows.

It refers to the countries that lie between 10 and 40 north, and from
roughly the Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean. These countries tend to be
either Islamic, or Communist. Restrictions on mission work are
restricted, when not outright banned. None the less there are a number
of organizations whose focus is in those areas.

In GnomeSword (and I think the other Sword Project Bible Study
Programmes), there is a notice in the Module Manager that says:
"Warning: If you live in a persecuted country, use with Care." This
notice is aimed at those countries.

Post by Karl Kleinpaste

Post by jonathon
20:15 and Deuteronomy 5:18 during the proceedings.)

I expect you meant Deuteronomy 5:19. :-)

Oops. Deut 5:19 is correct.

xan

jonathon