[sword-devel] Updating copyrighted modules

Andrew Thule thulester at gmail.com
Sun Jan 6 02:13:37 MST 2013

Sorry, I was frustrated when I fired off that last email in hast.   I would
still like an apology, but I have a better idea.  I think we're moving
towards transparency.

Since you and Chris have made my attempts to improve the ISV personal, and
you've threatened a number of times to boot me off the list, and out of the
community we can clear this up quickly.

Please post details about the license agreement you have in place with the
ISV foundation.  That will both answer questions about what Crosswire's
rights are and validate that Crosswire indeed has these rights.  You might
also wish to do this with other modules where Crosswire has exclusive
distribution rights so that other developers are aware, and as you point
out, sometimes copyright owners become hard to find (as you say "People go,
companies are sold" ... Making your actual arrangements transparent could
mean that in addition to avoiding misunderstanding like this in the future,
contributors could also help track down copyright owners where problems

Given the gravity of the accusations you've made against me, this request
is only fair as it brings to light the licensing details that confirm your
claims I've done something wrong, or will exonerate me.  That's fair right?


On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Andrew Thule <thulester at gmail.com> wrote:

> So module development IS restricted to a select and apparently secret
> group (who know who they are)?  You have not quite been honest,
> transparent, or forthright in this then Peter.  How was I suppose to know
> that was the case?; and yet you've stood my accuser knowing full well that
> your accusatios were unreasonable.
> If it is the case that certain module development is restricted ONLY to a
> select secret few, you should apologize for the false impressions you've
> left.  You've false accused me publically of purposeful mischief and
> lawlessness.  I've been acting in good faith trying to contribute on false
> information. I had no idea this was the case, and you certainly don't
> advirtise it on the site.  The site makes it seem like anyone can
> contribute to module creation, modification.
> Knowing full well ONLY a select secret group of hand chosen developers are
> permitted to work on particular modules you've said nothing about it until
> now and brought into question my character and ethics knowing I was
> attempting to act in good faith.  You cetainly had no issue with it when I
> was the one submitted the module, but apparently there are HUGE issues in
> sharing existing modules.
> For the sake of decency and transparency please document this in the
> Wiki.  If it is the case that new volunteers here are only accepted for the
> work they can contribute, but are otherwise excluded from contributing to
> module improvements, make that clear too so people have reasonable
> expectations.
> Finally, do the honourable thing and acknowledge that you've not been
> honest in your dealing with me.  A simply apology will suffice.  I am
> forgiving.
> ~A
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:01 AM, refdoc at gmx.net <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Much of what we publish is copyrighted. We obtain detailed clear
>> permission before anything goes on a public server. For the avoidance of
>> doubt I describe the usual process of updating such modules.
>> There is usually a core group member who has negotiated the exact, often
>> highly variable terms under which we can distribute. There is usually also
>> a direct link to a named person on the publisher's side. Occ we have
>> permission to republish and update without new interaction, usually though
>> not. In non English texts particularly, but others too occasionally
>> volunteers from the wider circle are involved in negotiations and
>> maintenance of contact.
>> As publisher relations can be very sensitive no one outside of the people
>> directly involved with a particular text is encouraged to do things off
>> their own back. Sometimes it becomes obvious the our link to a publisher
>> has gone stale. People go, companies are sold, etc. This can make obtaining
>> permission for an updated text tricky and prolonged.
>> Core group members know who they are and usually have a crosswire email
>> address, though might be for all reasons or none subscribed to this list
>> under a different one. Wider circle volunteers are encouraged to lobby for
>> permissions when lobbying is considered useful. No one is encouraged to
>> share copyrighted text in whatever form here on the list or in other
>> places.
>> If a copyrighted text has been updated, then the osis file should be
>> emailed to Chris as per wiki, not put on the web. Chris or Troy will then
>> check if our permissions are still ok and eventually update the module.
>> This can all appear slow and tedious, but dealing with publishers well is
>> crucial to what we want to achieve.
>> Peter
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20130106/503a4a7d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the sword-devel mailing list