There is clearly no point to continue this debate. The modules you were/are producing were illegal in the view of all those who participated in the debate many years ago, but for your own. You maintained your own "interesting" and unusual reading of copyright law and were then quite alone with thi
nt way. Ever since he pops up here
> again, offering his modules up for "testing".
>
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird
> autocorrects.
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Virtual modules (parallel
I think you are mixing up disapproval/dislike of you as a person with disapproval of your work and disagreement on distribution of the same via our channels.You have been publishing and announcing on far too many occasions modules which we believe to be illegally distributed. Once all is discusse
lace here in this project for you to offer your modules
> whether for "testing" or otherwise.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird
> autocorrects.
>
>
> ---- Original Message --------
> Subject: [sword-devel] Virtual
I think Andrew, it would be all round better if you moved on. Permanently. There is no place here in this project for you to offer your modules whether for "testing" or otherwise. ThanksSent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects. Original Message S
The wiki’s whiteboard shows discussion about support for virtual modules:
https://wiki.crosswire.org/Whiteboard/Virtual_Modules
Specifically the idea of pushing parallelism back to the API has
potentially great benefit for modules built from incomplete MSS. For
example, I’ve compared the English t
