34 replies to this topic

[jonathon]

Would you support it?

Define what you mean by "Open Source".

Also state what license you are proposing it be relicenced to.

There are people that will happily code for a BSD project, but won't touch a GPL project with a ten foot pole.

There are people that will happily code for a GPL projec, but won't touch a BSD project with a ten foot pole.

There are very few, if any, open-source projects, that are not run by ONE person, that are doing anything well.

The "Benevolent Dictator" in a Bazaar model seems to provide the optimum conditions for creating high quality Free Libre Open Source Software.

The "open source it, and see what happens" model seems to provide the best conditions for constructing dysfunctional software.

FWIW, at least 80% of the Open Source projects out there have less than five people working on the project.

For a good example, look at the mess LINUX is in.

The problem with Linux, is that it expects users to learn how to use their tools. This expectation conflicts with the non-training that computer courses provide.

How many different distros are there? Two hundred? Three hundred?

Linux is available for around thirty different chip architectures, or more than any other operating system in history.

The different distros focus on various niches, with various different, fundamental requirements. A system optimized for video editing is going to be very different from a system optimized for text editing, and both of those will be different from a system optimized for web surfing.

Which is the best one?

The best distro is the one whose kernel is tuned for the specific functions that you use the system for.

One sure way to mess up e-Sword is to open-source it.

I don't think that the GPL license would mess it up, because source code would be available, to fix the inevitable errors.

A BSD license might well mess it up, because source code would not be available, and the inevitable errors won't be fixed.

I like e-sword as it currently is. I don't think making it open source will be an improvement at all.

There are half a dozen features that could be added to e-Sword, that would be improvements. Features that, for various reasons, Rick is unlikely to implement. (Very few users would utilize these features, hence it wouldn't be "cost-effective" to implement.)

I wouldn't mind seeing versions eventually made for Mac and Linux. There might be enough of a user base to justify it.

At this stage of the game, iOS and Android make more sense than Mac and Linux. However, porting from Windows to other platforms is an extremely laborious process. In most cases, it is simpler, and faster, to rewrite from scratch for Linux, and port that to the other operating systems --- including Windows.

###

All that said, my preference is for GPL 3.0 licensed software, because that is one of the few licenses that does not conflict with Christian ethics and morals. However, it is also one of the more awkward licenses to monitize.

jonathon

Edited by jonathon, 22 February 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[journey]

NO!

e-Sword always works extremely well and is a first-class, state of the art program. That's the way I like it, and I wouldn't appreciate others messing this up. The arrangement is perfect as far as I'm concerned. Enough has been released that users can contribute a variety of modules if they really want to get involved.

[dartmaster644]

We really do need a full explanation as to why this question is being asked at all....otherwise there is no way to intelligentally answer the question. The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" premise is the only sensible answer w/o a full explanation of the motives..benefits..short-comings..and an honest synopsis of what we end up with as a result of tampering with the perfectly usable and reliable product we now have
in the E-sword program we currently have and love ! Having read some of the risks mentioned in the earlier replies....if true.....renders the question rediculous in the first place....as to whether E-sword should be an "Open Source Program".
My answer at this point is no...

[APsit190]

NO! For every open source project that is a success, there are tons that fail miserably. I would suggest that if you want an open source Bible Study program that you organize one but leave Rick's team and e-Sword out of the equation.

I have noticed more conflicting and divergent personalities and opinions in the e-Sword community than any other venture I've been involved in. So, I agree with Ebed. An open source, community e-Sword project would yield about the same result as the previous community e-SU site.

With e-Sword already being the world's most popular and most often downloaded Bible study program, I'm not sure why anyone would want to tamper with that.

if you want more sophistication, more options, more features, more customization, then TheWord is a good program.

If you want Bible study software that's open source community development, then Crosswire.org has already done this.

Josh,
I am totally in agreement with you and Ebed on this one.

e-Sword is free software, and going open source won't make it anymore freer. Moreover, when it comes to being open source, those working on a project work within the parameters of what is given to them by the project leader. Programmers can't put in anything they just like themselves without some form of consultation and agreement from other members of that team and the project leader.

I do not think that Rick is the sole programmer of e-Sword, but that he has a team working with him, so it would be pointless for him to put it out in the open source community. More over, Ebed is correct when he said, "For every open source project that is a success, there are tons that fail miserably," and because of that, there is no guarantee e-Sword would succeed.

I am not anti open source by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is I use Open Source software quite extensively, and the very web browser and email engine I use are open source (Firefox and Thunderbird). As well as I use other open source software such as the Gimp (a graphics editor), InkView (a Vector graphics program), GnuCash (an accounting program), and Open Workbench (a project management program).

Oh, yeah, I nearly forgot, I also have OpenOffice, Lazarus Free Pascal Programming IDE (trying to get my head around Pascal is a challenge), and Code::Blocks C++ Programming IDE (and Josh, this is a really good IDE to use, and I recommend it to you).

So, just because I use Open Source software, and am a real fan of it, yet I do not believe that anything and everything should be open source, and this goes to e-Sword as well. Rick and his team have done and are continuing to do an excellent job with this program, and I am prone to think that its totally unnecessary for it to be open source.

Blessings,

[APsit190]

I wouldn't mind seeing versions eventually made for Mac and Linux. There might be enough of a user base to justify it.

I agree with you, and the beaut part about it is that doesn't have to go open source in order to achieve it. That fact is there are both Open Source and Closed Source programming IDEs which support multiple compilers in which a program can be compiled to run on different platforms, i.e., Windows, Linux, and OSx (UNIX) operating systems. For a close source programming IDE which has multiple compilers is Embarcadero's C++ Builder and Delphi (Prism) IDEs. So there you go.

Blessings,

Edited by APsit190, 22 February 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[Fireandsalt]

Nice Christian responses by some. Hmm... well maybe I asked this question to see what the reaction would be? Maybe I asked it to see a great program become native on multiple operating systems. Maybe I asked it to cause utter despair and start an end of the world movement as this is 2012 after all.

But, alas the real reason I asked this question is to gauge the level of support the community would give if Rick was to take the project open source (and I was thinking GPLv3) to further the development as well as to speed the process of fixing bugs, adding features, etc...

To address the concern of open source e-sword causing its ruin... it is already a successful piece of software and judging by the number of registered users on this forum, I would say the fan base is large. I seriously doubt that by changing the license and making e-sword code publicly available, it would cause the demise of this time proven piece of software.

Additionally, what is wrong with having multiple forks of e-sword? You would be able to have the choice of downloading whatever version best supported your needs and goals with the software. I think having multiple flavors of e-sword would add more benefits that it would detractions. Of course, it is entirely possible to keep it one flavor just by continuing to host the main software repository on e-sword.net. That is where the "official" version of the software would be, and any forks that someone made would be either a) hosted on their own site or hosted by rick as an "official deviation or fork" of the original.

Rick is of course free to do as he pleases and does not need my or your permission to do or not do what he will with his property.

As to my motives, I'll let my posts here and my previous posts on this forum speak for themselves.

[jonathon]

But, alas the real reason I asked this question is to gauge the level of support the community would give if Rick was to take the project open source (and I was thinking GPLv3) to further the development as well as to speed the process of fixing bugs, adding features, etc...

One of the major issues that The Sword Project has run into, is the point blank refusal of content copyright holders to grant permission for their copyright content to be distributed in a form that can be used by that project. Indeed, one of the biggest copyright holders has publicly declared that under no circumstances will they ever allow any of their content to be used by TSP, or any other Biblical software that is distributed gratis, or distributed under an open source license.

To address the concern of open source e-Sword causing its ruin.

Going by the prior and currently available clones of e-Sword, I'd suggest that the "ruin" would be one or more of the following happening:

• Adding support for works such as D&C as part of the canonical Bible;
• New features that reduce the ease of using e-Sword. EG The fifth part of the 2009 SBL Bible Software Shootout.
• Adding functionality that doesn't directly support Biblical study: EG Four Element Analysis;

I seriously doubt that by changing the license and making e-sword code publicly available, it would cause the demise of this time proven piece of software.

Simply throwing something out as "open source" will not "fix" a product. OTOH, it won't necesarrily improve the product.

Additionally, what is wrong with having multiple forks of e-sword?

Support issues: Using an example from OOo, OOo 1.1.3-ZA had functionality that was not available in other versions of OOo 1.1.3. Users of versions other than OOo 1.1.3-ZA were very confused when they couldn't make the changes that were offered by OOo 1.1.3-ZA. In a similar vein, OOo compiled from the Novell source code repository offered different functionality than OOo composed from the Sun source code repository. (The effects of that can be seen in the differences between LibreOffice, and Apache OpenOffice.) ;

Resource functionality: Forks could easilly add functions, or components, that are not adopted by other branches. Resources created for those forks might not work in other forks, and vice versus.

You would be able to have the choice of downloading whatever version best supported your needs and goals with the software.

Taking OOo as an example:

• "Official Variants"
• Apache OpenOffice;
• OOoLight;
• OOo4Kids;
• LibreOffice;
• NeoOffice;
• "Unofficial Variants"
• OxygenOffice;
• "Third Party Variants"
• Lotus Symphony;
• Perfect Office;
• Red Flag Office;

Not all documents display the same way in all those versions.
Not all extensions can be installed in those versions;
Not all extensions offer the same functionality in those versions;

Granted, some of that is becuase the license for OOo did not, and does not require source code to be distributed to anybody.

I think having multiple flavors of e-sword would add more benefits that it would detractions.

How many of those versions of OOo do you recognize? Which one of those versions is going to be the most suitable for your office suite needs? Which one of those versions would be overkill for your office suite needs? Which one of those versions would be grossly inadequate for your office suite needs?

jonathon

[Fireandsalt]

Great responses Jonathon. I like the spirit of your posts. Despite what some may believe, it was not my intention to stir up strife on the forum. I just feel that having e-sword's source code would lead to the development of e-sword as a native Mac and Linux application, and facilitate bug fixes and new features at a faster pace.

I do have one question on one of your comments however.

One of the major issues that The Sword Project has run into, is the point blank refusal of content copyright holders to grant permission for their copyright content to be distributed in a form that can be used by that project. Indeed, one of the biggest copyright holders has publicly declared that under no circumstances will they ever allow any of their content to be used by TSP, or any other Biblical software that is distributed gratis, or distributed under an open source license.

e-Sword would be considered distributed gratis as well. It is given for free. Yet he has e-sword modules from major publishing houses for purchase. I don't think the nature of the license would affect his profits.

[jonathon]

e-Sword would be considered distributed gratis as well. It is given for free. Yet he has e-sword modules from major publishing houses for purchase. I don't think the nature of the license would affect his profits.

Inasmuch as one major copyright holder has declared the GPL to be verbotem, on the grounds that it aids and abets pirating, and has clamed to have a formal policy denying permission to "gratis" Biblical software from utilizing their content, it is self-evident that the percieved license does affect permission to distribute. That that copyright holder has distributed content for Libronix, even though Libronix is. from a technical POV, distributed gratis, merely shows the hypocracy in their formal policies and practices.

jonathon

[mikecindi]

Just a couple of comments:

• I would like to be confident that e-Sword continues to be developed even after RMeyers stops. Perhaps he has a plan for this (perhaps not). That he has continued for a dozen years puts him far beyond many such projects.
• Having tried several proprietary and open source Bible programs I only use a few: e-Sword, YouVersion, and Libronix (which BTW I have not upgraded to v4). YouVersion kind of takes the place of e-Sword's discontinued PPC package. I mostly use LDLS for the search function; e-Sword's has improved over the years but...
• I'm not sure which copyright holder refuses "gratis" use as most copyrighted versions of the Bible are available online at many sites and YouVersion has allowed the free download of those versions at various times. Perhaps confirming Jonathon's point of inconsistency from certain copyright holder's practices. I guess, like many comments on this topic, e-Sword is Mr. Meyer's concern and copyrighted Bible version's are the concern of the copyright holder to do with as they please.

Mike

Edited by mikecindi, 25 February 2012 - 01:31 PM.