[sword-devel] ISV status?
thulester at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 13:11:41 MST 2013
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org> wrote:
> We've actually had specific discussions with you about our not wanting you
> to redistribute our modules, specifically because of copyrighted content
> such as this for which WE have permission. YOU are not CrossWire. Any
> reasonable person would conclude that he did not have permission to
> distribute unless his name were, by some coincidence, "CrossWire".
Chris, you're already making modules based upon the ISV publically
available (are you not?). Once you made it clear you wanted me to 'take it
down' and I did - where exactly is the problem here?
> I'm curious what your train of thought was that led you to conclude that
> YOU should distribute a module that we were not distributing, when your
> basis for distribution was a belief that WE had permission to distribute it.
I've already explained my train of thought on this. Crosswire freely
distributes version 1.5 of a module based upon ISV. One of the developers
asks about updating it to include the OT. Checking the distribution rights
contained in the isv.conf file, I see that Crosswire is already permitted
to distribute this copyrighted text so offer to help. You ask me to remove
the module from my repo - which I do. Peter gets angry and tells me to
> The .conf you had posted obviously was not for that version of the module,
> given that the SourceType was wrong and all of the other details simply
> reflected our released version:
Perhaps, but we didn't get very far into discussions about module
development before people started to exhibit 'knee-jerk' reactions. The
.conf file (like all) is subject to change depending upon the needs of the
module. (FYI I simply modified that .conf file incrementing the version
number so it wouldn't be mistaken for the version Crosswire is already
sharing with the world - this is more than a reasonable small change to
> The basis for the module you posted was outdated at the time it was
> produced and had been removed from the publisher's website by then. The
> OSIS document produced from this was furthermore not valid XML (unless it
> has been updated in the last year). So conversion from a Word document is
> still necessary. And unless the process for converting from that Word
> document can be replicated (via scripts) the whole exercise of producing
> that OSIS document was without value.
This is the kind of dialogue that actually gets things done, improves
modules and moves things forward. I have no trouble believing what you say
above and still would volunteer to do the work ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel