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

Karl Kleinpaste karl at kleinpaste.org
Sat Jul 28 20:56:57 MST 2012

Andrew Thule <thulester at gmail.com> writes:
> Because there are many modules not representing any publishers,
> modules not subject to restrictions in their licenses, there will be
> repos with redundant copies of modules.

I really don't see your point about this.

Take one example in the Xiphos repo, EarlyFathers ("The Early Church
Fathers Series").  I produced it initially, and Brian Dumont has taken
over its editing for the last couple years, gradually moving to a better
origin text.  It is GPL, no distribution restrictions.

Who would want to provide EarlyFathers in a redundant repo?  Perhaps
more importantly, why?

> what is the philosophy behind Crosswire's efforts to distribute
> scripture? Is it to have one 'official' source or more?

I can't pretend to speak for Troy, but it's known that some modules are
permitted for distribution /only/ by Crosswire itself (ESV is such, I
understand).  So yes, not just one official source, it's exactly one
source, period.

I just don't see the motivation behind the idea of wanting to see a
single module available from more than one repo.  I actually do this; I
have a private repo which is the staging area for the Xiphos repo.  But
it's just that, a staging/prep arrangement.  All it means is that I test
modules from one and then make them publicly available in another, and a
module manager simply shows the same set of modules in each, with the
same version stamps and modification dates.  It provides no actual
value, even if the private repo were publicly accessible.  And having
that sort of redundancy seen publicly would do little more than confuse
Joe Average, who would wonder which "version" (even though they're the
same) of a module he should install.

More information about the sword-devel mailing list