Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Kahunapule Michael Johnson
On 09/27/2016 03:08 AM, Fiona von Kaehne wrote: > We try and negotiate as wide permissions as possible. All modules have > licensing info in their conf file. That information should be sufficient for > your purposes, no? > > In essence all those which are PD or similarly freely licensed are

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Matěj Cepl
On 2016-09-27, 15:30 GMT, DM Smith wrote: > Copyrighted; Permission to distribute granted to CrossWire > then it is specific to CrossWire. But that means that the biblical module should be always downloaded from the CrossWire website, not that it could be done so and it can only be parsed by

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Matěj Cepl
On 2016-09-27, 13:08 GMT, Fiona von Kaehne wrote: > We try and negotiate as wide permissions as possible. All > modules have licensing info in their conf file. That > information should be sufficient for your purposes, no? OK, I thought about something like

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Greg Hellings
And even at that point, no copyright will be violated unless someone attempts to mirror or host format shifted versions of the modules. On Sep 27, 2016 11:37 AM, "Greg Hellings" wrote: > Unless and until this fork is unable to read a Sword module format, this >

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread DM Smith
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: > > On 2016-09-26, 21:10 GMT, DM Smith wrote: >> A fork of the CrossWire library (SWORD or JSword) may or may >> not be seen by the copyright holders to be mechanism of >> distribution and access that they are willing to license their >> work.

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Greg Hellings
Unless and until this fork is unable to read a Sword module format, this discussion is moot. The distribution had no bearing on the software that does the parsing of the file. On Sep 27, 2016 11:32 AM, "DM Smith" wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Fiona von Kaehne
On 27 Sep 2016 12:52 pm, Matěj Cepl wrote: > Of course, this is yet another example of the complete mess > about the Biblical modules. Is there somewhere a list of all > modules with their appropriate licenses under they are > distributed, or are all of them (except for the

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Matěj Cepl
On 2016-09-27, 11:51 GMT, Jaak Ristioja wrote: > Hold your words for a bit and have a little patience. Since > this is all very fresh news to many of you, let it settle > a bit. The SWORD project also needs some time to reflect and > decide on the best course of action. Your criticism does not

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Matěj Cepl
On 2016-09-26, 21:10 GMT, DM Smith wrote: > A fork of the CrossWire library (SWORD or JSword) may or may > not be seen by the copyright holders to be mechanism of > distribution and access that they are willing to license their > work. I know of one publisher of a popular module in >

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Jaak Ristioja
On 27.09.2016 13:28, Matěj Cepl wrote: > On 2016-09-26, 17:14 GMT, Ryan Hiebert wrote: >> It is certainly possible that there is only room for one >> library in the "market". If this is the case, and this fork >> becomes the choice of the market, then it should be apparent >> that the original

Re: [sword-devel] Announcing Sword++

2016-09-27 Thread Matěj Cepl
On 2016-09-26, 17:14 GMT, Ryan Hiebert wrote: > It is certainly possible that there is only room for one > library in the "market". If this is the case, and this fork > becomes the choice of the market, then it should be apparent > that the original did not make the choices that the market >