jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 14:44:08 MST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 08/22/2007 06:06 PM, * peter wrote:
> Reverse engineering in order to connect up to or allow format shifting -
> there is nothing immoral about that,
This gets into theology. (Matthew 5:40, Luke 12:15, and their analogues
in The Epistles, The Torah, The Writings, and the Prophets.)
> EULAs which try to enforce it have no legal or other
> validity in many jurisdictions. AFAIK, IANAL etc etc.
I'll grant that the validity of a EULA might not be enforceable outside
of a specific legal jurisdiction. You might not have noticed that US
laws are being enforced in other countries --- regardless of the
legality of the action in the other country. (IOW, people have been
extradited from other countries, doing things that are legal in those
countries, to be tried, and convicted of violating US Law.)
The relationship here is that EULAs (in the US) typically drag the DMCA
and related laws into the mix. (DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act.)
This is US-Centric, but most of the (English Language) Bible Study
Software is produced in the US, and is covered by EULAs that are legally
binding in the US.
> That aside, yes, I think there is a point in explaining how to get from
> one _import_format to another. Because if you produced material for
For the time being, I'll stick with markup languages, because one can
produce original material in any markup language.
As far as format shifting goes, just because one knows how to do a
conversion, does not mean that one should describe how to do that
conversion. (Additionally, US Copyright Law gets very fuzzy on some
aspects of describing those processes.)
> Crosswire :-), then you would want to take your very own material with
> you - and that must be ok under any and all legislations
If you are the copyright holder, you can convert the material to the
format of your choice.
If you are the creator of the work, in jurisdictions that recognize
"Moral Rights", one may convert the material to the format of one's
choice, even if one is not the copyright holder. If your jurisdiction
does not recognize "Moral Rights", then one might be out of luck, in
making such a conversion.
The issue is when the individual who wants to convert the material is
neither the original creator, nor the copyright holder.
>Changing the FAQ entry was right, it should have been done earlier. I
don't see how your and Chris' comment relate.
It is the difference between a generic "No", and a specific "No, and
here is why not".
>The purpose would be to help people understand why we cannot or can use
some texts, but not to give any legal details about any copyright
I think some legal details are needed, to clarify some of the edge cases.
EG1: When it is not a copyright violation to create a resource in an
"original language". (Both the USB and NA are under copyright. TR is
EG2: When translations are to be considered derivative works, and when
they are not considered to be derivative works.
EG3: Orphan works, and how they are defined.
If pointers to FAQs that cover such situations can be found, then by all
means use them.
The issue with "Orphan Works" is going to affect people who create
resources that include graphical images. My current thinking in regard
to graphical images is that if contains no metadata, then assume that it
is under copyright, with all rights reserved. Ditto for sound files.
>It would be good to have links to external FAQs or e.g.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the sword-devel