On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Andrew Thule <thules...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DM, all of which you said is reasonable; no issues from me. My point was in > the efforts to assist with module develoment, I apparently crossed some line. > I offered to send an OSIS update, and made a testing version of it available. > The debate started (as you note) because of my making a testing version > available (this taken to be 'distribution') I think what Greg responded is at the heart of the response. It was expressed very strongly here that your work on the DSS was a copyright infringement. You strongly disagreed. (Let's not get into that again.) You've hosted copyrighted modules from Wycliffe, IBT, bible.org and CrossWire. (I have not personally checked, so I may be wrong on repeating this.) I think this provoked history provoked the response you have gotten. While it has not been said (as far as I can remember), that you host any CrossWire module while hosting the DSS is highly undesirable to us as we think others may see it as condoning the DSS without a license agreement. When you posted the ISV, that became especially bothersome. Regarding module development of copyrighted material, the only proper way to proceed is using material supplied by the owner under license. Get permission first and then work on it. For modules that we already have, we need to use existing contacts to do that. Regarding the ESV that I'm working on, I was never given the contact information, but rather the last person to do the negotiation obtained new permission and granted me access to the source materials. Regarding copyrighted works that are not in the CrossWire repository, we need to work together to obtain permission. The proper way is to check the wiki, which has a page dedicated to such requests, and ask here whether any effort had been made in gaining permission. There are several here that have successfully gotten permission and can guide how to make such a request. We have a general wiki page giving a simple request. > > I don't have a hard time believing Crosswire has worked out the details of > its licensing agreemnt to distribute the Copyright holder's text in through a > very sensitive process (or even that these agreements come with residual > sensitivies), even if I find it difficult to believe distribution of > (complied) modules for the sake of development is expressly excluded or > limited in otherways. > Public sharing of copyrighted modules is almost always a bad idea. Even when allowed, it may give the perception that we don't properly regard other license agreements. Private sharing with those who will participate in the development/QA, once permission has been obtained and registered with CrossWire, is good. > What I did have a hard time with was being publicly held accountable to > license restrictions reasonably unknown to me (and apparently secret), while > having the issue made personal. It isn't reasonable to assume I knew sharing > a compiled module with this group would set off a firestorm if the license > between the ISV foundation and CrossWire is treated as confidential .. IMHO, that's not what set off the firestorm. See above. > > Jerry, well I appreicate what you're saying, I suspect these issues are > issues Crosswire needs to give more thought to internally so that module > developers (volunteers, newcomers etc) are not expected to either provide the > solution or get caught in the crossfire when a can-o-worms gets opened. > > ~A > > > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, jhphx <jh...@cox.net> wrote: > On 1/6/2013 1:54 AM, Andrew Thule wrote: > I'm currently reviewing its contents to ensure no module exclusive to > Crosswire was available. I will be putting it back up on completion of my > review. > ... > > I am not sure how you think being exclusive to Crosswire works in this > context, but, > > IF: > a) none of those other sources have legitimate (licensed) copies of a > copyrighted text or it's derivatives, > OR > b) none of those sources provided you with a legitimate license to do > whatever you do, > OR > c) it simply appears like you are violating anyone's copyrights, > THEN: > It won't matter to CrossWire how many other sources there are, you would > appear to be, and in fact could be, a threat to CrossWire's ability to > distribute if it appears that CrossWire is condoning what you do. It does not > matter how the other sources see it, or how you see it, it matters how it > seems to CrossWire and how it may seem to the publishers they work with. > > Andrew, you appear to want to help. There are many things someone like you > could do, but maybe working on copyrighted modules and distribution of them > is not the right task for now. There remains many other things needing to be > done. > > If you still feel the need to work on a copyrighted text for CrossWire then I > suggest you ask yourself three things: > a) could this work produce a copy, new copy, new version, or derivative of > the text, > b) could this work result in exposing, intentionally or not, a copy so that > wild (any unlicensed) distribution could result, > c) could this work possibly offend CrossWire or the publishers they work with. > > If the answer to any of those is yes then ask if you should work on it and > exactly how you should do it to avoid these problems. Although, at this time > "just ask" may be the best policy. > > Just a suggestion, I am not an official voice on these matters. > > Jerry > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
