[sword-devel] ISV status?

refdoc@gmx.net refdoc at gmx.net
Sun Jan 6 00:16:33 MST 2013

Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message -----
From: "refdoc at gmx.net" <refdoc at gmx.net>
To: "SWORD Developers&apos; Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] ISV status?
Date: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 07:08

Sorry for top posting. 

You were yesterday off list notified, with detailed evidence that you are distributing dozens and dozens of copyrighted modules for which you have no permission.

There appears to be no change to that when I checked last s couple of hours ago. So your repeated on-list reassurances  to be willing to follow our guidance sound hollow and thoroughly dishonest to me. 

Wrt submission of modules, the wiki describes the process well. To be submitted osis files are to be sent  to modules at crosswire. Org.
Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message -----
From: "Andrew Thule" <thulester at gmail.com>
To: "SWORD Developers&apos; Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
Subject: [sword-devel] ISV status?
Date: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 06:06

Chris, I should add in response to your last comment, if you ever find I'm distributing something I shouldn't be - please don't hesitate to tell me.  I'm more than happy to remove it.

As it stands now however I have done exactly what you asked when you've asked - so you should have no complaint against me.


On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Andrew Thule <thulester at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org> wrote:

I credit you for taking it down, but you haven't explained why YOU felt it was YOUR place to do it in the first place. 'Andrew Thule posts the module on his FTP site' is not part of our release process.

Because I was trying to help.  I assumed that module development was covered under licenses, and have no other way to share modules I create with members of this list.

The wiki doesn't prohibit the sharing of Copyrighted modules under development, so it was reasonable to assume since the module itself was being distributed to the word, modules being developed could be distributed also.

Yet, why would that have anything at all to do with you? You have no connection to the publishers, you didn't do the conversion, and you are in no way a part of the release process.

You say you checked the distribution rights presented in isv.conf, but it contained exactly the string present in those modules that we have told you in the past that you may not re-distribute. You prevent reading of other such .confs on your FTP site, so you're clearly aware that this is material you should not be re-distributing. But you did it anyway, because you're content to act without thinking.

I'm a member of this list, trying to help, volunteering my time, and Nic's question wasn't directed at anyone in particular.  He was asking about a version of the ISV which contained the OT, which I had.

Why wouldn't it have anything to do with me?  Is there something somewhere that says only certain members of this list can help?  Where does it say only those folks directly connected to the publisher can make improvements?

Yes, as in my other response, you're still pressing away at the false idea I ignored the licenses.  You still have to clarify that bit with respect to who can and who cannot offer improvements and whether or not development is excluded from 'distribution'.  I was offering an improved module (and OSIS) TO Crosswire for distribution by Crosswire's repo.

I admit that my thinking is limited at times.  In this case it is limited by what I don't know - which is why you've been asked for clarification.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20130106/53d30cd0/attachment.html>

More information about the sword-devel mailing list