[sword-devel] Legitimate FTP Mirrors & Module Distribution Rights Question

Karl Kleinpaste karl at kleinpaste.org
Fri Jul 27 14:05:09 MST 2012

David Haslam <dfhmch at googlemail.com> writes:
> I have both KJV v2.3 (main) and KJV v2.4 (beta) installed
> successfully, by means of Xiphos.

Well... from your description, "by means of Xiphos" is a considerable
stretch, in that you edited configurations outside Xiphos.

> To do that I first moved the one from beta & renamed it as KJV24, by
> editing the first two lines in the conf file to match the new path,
> and (to support Bible Desktop) also tweaked its Description in the
> conf file.

Yes, a lot of us who do module development keep tweaked configurations
of exactly such a sort.  bible.org's real NET is "NETnative" to me,
because I prefer my own NET spin.  Same idea.  Very common.

> It's a strange quirk for BD that even if the module names are
> different, the Descriptions must also be different.

Although there isn't any enforcement of such a thing in the C++ engine,
it wouldn't be a bad idea to add it.  There are many circumstances where
we would like to present a list of available modules via Description
content only.  This leads to obvious ambiguity that ought to be
rectified in configuration.  Notice that the never-finished beta NASB is
now NASBnew (as last given us by Troy) and its Description changed to
add "(NEW)".  Um...or maybe it *didn't* change, and I did that myself,
for exactly this reason.  I've forgotten.

The bottom line is that there is (ought to be) one canonical version of
any given module.  Version differences, and presence in e.g. main -vs-
beta as a result of those differences, still represent nothing more than
a single metaphorical publisher producing a single module in variations
that should, for the normal user, exist only one at a time in his apps.

More information about the sword-devel mailing list