Talk:Frontends:FeatureList

I've taken some comments out of the main page and moved them into this discussion page. Benpmorgan 08:08, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

Usability:

These kind of statements are so bogus that they actually mean nothing. All software should be easy to use and bugfree. Eelik 05:34, 25 May 2008 (MDT)

It is true all software should be easy to use and bugfree. However, most aren't. I put this on the list as they require special attention. Benpmorgan 08:08, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

Other

Any frontend using the Sword library MUST be GPL. Eelik 05:36, 25 May 2008 (MDT)

Only GPL v2 compatible. Jmmorgan 05:55, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

This is not true. I can use any GPL compatible license (or even public domain). It's also possible to use a sockets to communicate and not use an open source license at all Benpmorgan 08:08, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

I don't know why this would be confusing, but Sword is GPLv2 licensed. GPL is viral. All derivatives of GPL software must obligatorily have the identical license. (GPLv2 software must be GPLv2. GPLv3 software must be GPLv3. "GPLv2 or later" software must be GPLv2, GPLv3, or GPLv2 or later, or GPLv3 or later--depending on which license you select. But Sword is GPLv2 only (not later).) All frontends, utilities, etc.--anything that links to the library--are derivative works and therefore must be GPLv2 (or would be in violation of CrossWire's, the FSF's, and others' copyrights). It is not acceptable or legal to use other "GPL compatible licenses" or release Sword-derivatives into the public domain. "GPL compatible" refers to software that may be legally incorporated INTO GPL software. BSD & MIT are GPL compatible licenses, which is why we can use the ICU in Sword. LGPL is GPL compatible, which is why we can use CLucene. But it would not be legal for a piece of BSD, MIT, LGPL, or public domain software to incorporate Sword. Sockets are an independent matter and software based on them wouldn't be a frontend in the normal sense. If someone DID create a Sword sockets utility--that would obligatorily be under GPLv2. And if someone were to create a non-GPL UI that made use of sockets to exploit Sword then we would likely license all content such that it could not be used in non-GPL software or non-CrossWire software (making such UIs fairly useless unless you're willing to break the law). Osk 12:03, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

Parallel commentaries

What is the point of having parallel commentaries? Parallel bibles help you compare similar, yet different translations. Commentaries are never similar enough that they need comparing specifically; the ability to have side by side windows ought to be enough. (and if not, then dictionaries ought to display parallel as well...) Benpmorgan 08:08, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

I agree, but I would guess that side-by-side commentary windows was all that was meant by "parallel commentaries". I don't think it really matters whether this is accomplished in multiple (MDI-type) windows, as in BibleTime, or in a single window with multiple columns, as in the Bible Tool (swordweb). Osk 12:11, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

I think it can be useful to have a commentary displayed along side another commentary or Bible. Because of "linked" entries, laying out in parallel is more difficult in HTML table cells. But it can be accomplished with rowspan. --Dmsmith 12:38, 30 May 2008 (MDT)

Support for vertical script ?

The Inner Mongolian NT is written in vertical script. Now there's a challenge to the technical minded! David Haslam 10:19, 20 July 2008 (MDT)