Notices

If the formats are really so different that you can't convert from Bible+ to Sword, then I don't see how another reader could read the Bible+ format. What kind of format is it? Is it a text-based format? If so, why is it so hard to convert to Sword?

I'm actually quite interested in being able to read the Bible+ format, but if it's so intractable that it can't be converted from, I don't see how it's possible.

Jesus Christ.

I requested to join the project, and would like to take a look at source whenever it's in a coherent form.

Re: conversion. The sword-compatible input formats have pretty detailed and specific requirements. I don't think it's so much an impossibility as not worth the effort considering there are already sword alternatives.

In any case i will look into supporting something besides sword because sword is a bible-centric tool, and there are other religious books about that people are going to want to study.

ARJWright,

I'm glad your available to answer these types of questions!

So your saying rather than write a "convertor" because of "legal" ramifications of "converting" them -- it would be much better to write in a set of "engines" of some sort to allow it to use these Bibles from other products directly. Thus no conversion, eliminating the "Legal" issue?

I believe that is not actually that hard to do; we would just need to abstract the engine system, another level. So when it opened up a Module the front end doesn't care what it is; just that the engine support getting text, getting reference, "searching", and a set of enumeration about what type it is (i.e. Bible, Notes, Image....)

In that vein, as I was looking into converting -- I did some research, their is a libpdb that can read pdb files for linux. But the .pdb files appear to have compressed text or something. The pdb files have garbage exported. I believe we could use the pdb import java code to figure out how to update the libpdb to be able to support the Bible+ files.

1. As for olivetree; I'm not sure what their file format is it is some encrypted?/compressed? pdb format.
2. As for E-sword, v9 modules are SQLite. (encrypted and not) -- this engine would probably be the easiest to write.
3. OnlineBible - Unknown, also some compressed format I believe.

This could be a very good idea. It could eliminate the whole issue of trying to get "support" from the publishers to put on certain types of Bibles/Commentaries on our platform. And would by fiat for them open another group of users the ability to "purchase" the modules from them, w/o them having to do any "work".

Nathan

Nathan, that's a good idea, but I want to sit on it a half day or so before thinking it all the way through.

For companies like OliveTree, Laridian, and even the Sword project, any effort to build another reader should not compete against their efforts, but extend it. I've got it in my to-do list to contact OliveTree and ask if they'd be interested in the compatibility for Maemo devices. As for other entities like Sword, Online Bible, etc., I need to think (and choose my words carefully due to my associations outside of Maemo).

I'm a little confused by your above statement:
E-sword is a free reader
OliveTree is a free reader
OnlineBible is a free reader
Sword is a open Source library.
Bible+ is a free open source reader (and afaik all modules on SF are also free)
Laridan (Appears to be Paid app $29 & up)

What competition (other than Laridan) are we against? "Free" vs "Free" is not really an issue, imho.

So if all we are doing is offering another "free" reader but allowing the users to purchase the module from them. I would think they would be all for it. Free development (i.e. they don't have to pay any developers to make a n900 version), and potentially "free" money (i.e. the users purchase the commercial modules from them).
Seems to me like it is a major win on their side as we end up doing the hard work, and they get paid for it.

Nathan.

It's a good question. I have tried all the Palm and PocketPC bible programs and have looked at what is currently available on the iPhone and Blackberry platforms. I have converted all of my Bible+ modules to e-Sword and Pocket e-Sword format, yet I still find myself using Bible+ as my main program. It's not just about the modules themselves.

The issue for me is this: I have yet to find a BIble program which works as well for me as Bible+. It's like a glove that just fits. I am a pastor of a church and my life revolves around it. I rarely use the other programs I have. I use it for sermon prep and devotions. If I abandoned my Treo I would gain a lot but also lose a lot. It would be like taking two steps forward and two steps back. (The same could be said for DateBk. No other calendar program has the features I have grown accustomed to). If a program could be developed which would gave me access to the same modules AND had similar features to Bible+ I would upgrade tomorrow. At the moment emulation seems to be the best option.

As a stop gap I carry around two devices. My Treo does all my work stuff. My HTC Diamond does all the things my Treo can't and as it is so small I barely notice it in my pocket. However I would prefer to only have to carry around one device. I am still looking for that 'ultimate gadget'. It's frustrating. All the ingredients are there on different phones but as yet no-one has brought them all together.

I believe the idea is to provide a reader to that is able to read Palm Bible+ and Olive tree PDB. It would encourage people to buy the non-free bible versions from them. A reference can be made to their websites in the ABOUT section of the app to guide people to where they can get other versions of the bible that need to be purchased.

For Olive Tree, the reader is free; all of the modules are not.

Does anyone on this thread have an actual N900 device? I'm curious because I compiled the Qt 4.6 alpha that was released, but the kinetic (finger) scrolling doesn't work on the simulator. I'm not sure if this is a problem with the simulator, or not - the demo videos from Trolltech seem to show finger scrolling. If anyone does, could I help you get Qt SDK running, to see if stuff works correctly?

I guess it's not that big a deal. I was just hoping to have a working version for the initial launch.