This thread has generated a lot of heated debate that I think is incidental to the real purpose of the licensing and of the existence of the Sword project and Crosswire in general (though of course I cannot speak for Crosswire, and probably don't want to). I think that the Sword developers really need to decide what their mission is for Sword. Is it intended to support programs that are gratis, libre, or both? Or is it just intended to make quality Bible software available to as many users as possible (a thing that I would consider important for any such aim). I personally do not think that it is as important that developers that use Sword do every little thing that Crosswire would like, so long as they make the word of the Bible available to more people and observe the license under which they have been given Sword (GPL v2).
I too wish for there to be Bible software that is freely available for everyone, and historically the community built around the Sword project has supported this goal. I am a BPBible developer attempting to improve the software that is available to users, and I do think that it is important that this software remain freely available to all to assist in the spreading of the gospel. However, I do not think that the objection apparent on this mailing list to even discuss rationally the licensing without essentially saying, "We want it this way to stop those evil commercial people from making any money from our hard work" supports this goal at all. When you release the software under the GPL, you have just as much responsibility as other users to ensure that this license is kept. Attempting to persuade people that additional clauses (such as non-commercial use) should be kept when the GPL does not require them is not IMHO the best way to go. Just to summarise some of the things that you have licensed any user to do: 1. Sell any copy of the code or derivative work, so long as source code is distributed. 2. Create software that interacts with Sword through pipes, sockets, or any other thing that does not invoke the GPL on the software that is created (my personal opinion is that anyone who takes the trouble to do this and do this well would have to put considerable work into it, and thus it is not just a matter of taking the existing software as is. They might actually be better off to start from scratch, though that is probably a matter for debate). If any developer is adding to Sword with the goal of making the Bible freely available to others, then I think that that is good. However, they should not have any illusions that their work is somehow special, and people should not be able to gain any benefit from it, even if they are following the license under which it was given. Any work which restricts or attempts to restrict commercial usage or selling of the software is non-free (at least in the Debian sense), and is probably counter-productive. I also think that the assumption that having commercial applications using the software will mean taking all your hard work and not giving anything back is just that, an assumption. Many open source projects have active contributions from commercial organisations, even those under BSD-style licenses where the company does not need to contribute back. I don't think that your choice of the GPL is a bad choice, but I do think that you are seriously in error in jumping to the conclusion that if it goes commercial it will be taking all your work without any attribution or contribution. I'm not even convinced that lots of commercial software would want to use Sword. They would still need copyright agreements and a host of other things. Sword as currently set up is designed for personal usage of modules, and negotiating module agreements for a break away commercial product could be difficult in any case. I think your position is also a bit interesting when you do not wish to allow developers to make money out of your software, but you permit module authors to make money out of the software (with a license that is typically far more stringent than the license you develop software under, though that opens another can of worms which can be left for a later email). I very much object to the amount charged for some modules, which so far exceeds distribution costs that it is more worthy of being charged with profiteering from God's word than hypothetical commercial applications. Jon PS: Please remember in any contentious threads like these that sword-devel is archived publicly. Do not say anything that you would not wish a non-Christian to read and quote you on. I don't think that anything on this thread would cause Rom 2: 24 to be valid, but some of it comes very close. _______________________________________________ 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
