Re: Script to find a best fit v11n

--===============5155915315780498725==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000881140638ca0c00"

--0000000000000881140638ca0c00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 =C3=A0 14:43, Mat=C4=9Bj Cepl <[email protected]> a =C3=A9=
crit :

> 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=E2=80=99t
> do open source software, which nobody can package and distribute.
>
> And apparently FSF doesn=E2=80=99t 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 =E2=80=A6 Apparently, you will be in the distinguished
> company of Linus Torvalds and many others.
>
> Best,
>
> Mat=C4=9Bj
>
> --
> http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, @[email protected]
> 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: [email protected]
> http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>

--0000000000000881140638ca0c00
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>It might be a silly question, but can&#39;t we just c=
onsider changing the libsword license to something more permissive to allow=
 such use cases, without overthinking about GPL compatibility issues ?<br><=
/div><div>
<div>It is quite uncommon for open source libraries to use GPL nowadays, as=
 it&#39;s=20
very restrictive by nature. GPL remains mostly for &quot;complete&quot; app=
lications - libraries tend to rather use LGPL, Apache 2.0 or MIT license (d=
epending on the level of protection they seek), to favour wide usability.</=
div><div><br></div>It is to be noted that JSword is=20
published under LGPL, which allows other apps to use it without=20
constraints as long as it&#39;s not being modified.<br>It would be enough f=
or the current use case, and it would make sense for libsword and jsword to=
 be aligned.<div>Personally
 speaking, I&#39;d favour something more permissive like the Apache 2.0=20
license, which basically allows any usage or modification of any kind,=20
but requires people to preserve the initial copyright notice and notify of =
significant changes.</div><br></div><div>Of course, publishing under a new =
license can only be done by the current rights holder, which according to t=
he libsword LICENSE is the &quot;CrossWire Bible Society&quot;, as an organ=
isation.</div><div>Does Troy have the full power of decision on the topic ?=
</div><div>Troy, what do you think of publishing libsword under a more perm=
issive license ?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div=
>Arnaud</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote=
_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0lun. 30 juin 2025=
 =C3=A0=C2=A014:43, Mat=C4=9Bj Cepl &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mc=
[email protected]</a>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon Jun 30, 2025 at 4:55 AM CEST, Aaron Rainbolt=
 wrote:<br>
&gt; From what I understand as someone who isn&#39;t a lawyer but has done<=
br>
&gt; licensing audits for applications in Ubuntu and Debian, you&#39;ll onl=
y<br>
&gt; run into issues if you publish *built binaries* of your code.<br>
<br>
That technically may be true, but it is a stupid idea. You don=E2=80=99t<br=
>
do open source software, which nobody can package and distribute.<br>
<br>
And apparently FSF doesn=E2=80=99t agree with my analysis:<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html=
#v2v3Compatibility</a><br>
<br>
So, my only advice is to relicense your new program under GPLv2<br>
and send FSF to =E2=80=A6 Apparently, you will be in the distinguished<br>
company of Linus Torvalds and many others.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Mat=C4=9Bj<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href=3D"http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bla=
nk">http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/</a>, @[email protected]<br>
GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5=C2=A0 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8<br>
<br>
For those of you who think we are descendents from those cavemen<br>
who stood and fought with dinosaurs, you must be nuts, we are<br>
descendents from the ones who ran like hell to live.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" targ=
et=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</=
a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000000881140638ca0c00--

--===============5155915315780498725==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: [email protected]
http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

--===============5155915315780498725==--