<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Comments below...<br>
<br>
On 04/14/2012 06:02 PM, Chris Little wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8A4849.7030603@crosswire.org" type="cite">It
sounds like the solution to the problem being described is
proxies, not mirrors.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that either proxies or mirrors can improve the probability
of access from creative access countries. The primary difference is
that a mirror increases the effective available download bandwidth
while a proxy does not, unless it is a caching proxy. The main issue
with mirrors is if they are periodically updated to the contents of
the master site (which is good) or just mirrored once with content
that eventually goes stale (which is not as good). If, like Ubuntu
archive mirrors, all mirrors use rsync in a specific manner to
update every 6 hours, then all archives contain the exact same data.
I would rather see regularly-updated mirrors or caching proxies than
simple proxies, just to get the added benefit of more capacity (and
therefore more resistance to DOS attacks as well as more ability to
distribute Scriptures to more people in a given time).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8A4849.7030603@crosswire.org" type="cite">
My worries about mirroring are:
<br>
<br>
1) Fragmentation
<br>
<br>
What you're describing would offer a proper subset of our
offerings. A subset, other than the empty set itself, is better
than nothing, but a user expects a mirror to be a mirror, not a
portion of a mirror. A CPAN/CTAN/CRAN mirror or any Linux distro's
package mirror that is systematically lacking certain packages is
not very useful to anyone and is just going to annoy users.
<br>
<br>
Since there aren't any strict interdependencies between Sword
modules, a subsetted module repository would be less unuseful than
other types of mirrors, but I still quite dislike the notion of a
repository masquerading as a CrossWire mirror that isn't one.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
While I agree that a complete mirror is better than an incomplete
mirror from an end user perspective, there is already
"fragmentation" in the Crosswire repositories in terms of separation
of av11n and old versification repositories, release vs. test, and
probably in the future, majority language vs. minority language
repositories. One more degree of separation by free vs. non-free
licensing isn't too much to ask of a group that understands the
value of both free and open source software and the value of Public
Domain and Creative Commons Bibles. There once was a time when the
freely redistributable Bibles was all that Crosswire had.<br>
<br>
I don't think it is a matter of "masquerading" as a CrossWire mirror
so much as creating a repository that specializes in redistributing
redistributable Bibles in the form of Sword modules.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8A4849.7030603@crosswire.org" type="cite">2)
Irrevocability
<br>
<br>
There are cases in which licensing will terminate and we will need
to remove content from our repositories. There have also been
cases in which we were mistaken about licensing and had to remove
content from our repositories.
<br>
<br>
Any mirror would have to reflect new & updated content as well
as content that had been removed or undergone a license change.
For that reason, it would not be reasonable to do manual curation
of mirrored modules.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If the mirror only had Public Domain, Creative Commons, and
similarly-licensed, non-expiring rights modules, then removal of
modules is not an issue, except in the case of "mistaken" licensing
(which should never happen, anyway). Therefore, the manual burden of
removing modules from the primary repository for redistributable
modules should be minimal. Downstream mirrors could automate removal
of what disappeared from the primary repository.<br>
<br>
In general, irrevocability is a good thing in the context of getting
Scriptures into places where hostile neighbors and even governments
don't want it to go. Wikileaks was an outrage... and a great example
of persecution-resistant message delivery.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8A4849.7030603@crosswire.org" type="cite">
3) Integration with our existing ecosystem
<br>
<br>
There's no notion of mirror repositories, much less partial mirror
repositories, in our current installMgr / masterRepoList.conf
architecture. A user could manually add partial mirror
repositories, but I would object to our including partial mirrors
in the masterRepoList.conf in any way, because they don't actually
represent our offerings. (Full mirrors, if they were possible,
would be another matter. I could see making the repository URL
into a list to support mirrors, but that wouldn't be appropriate
for partial mirrors.)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps there should be. In any case, it is possible to manually add
repository URLs that are not on a master list. That is as it should
be. You can disclaim responsibility for such repositories, of
course, but those might be the only ones some people can see. A
master repository list is, after all, great source material for a
censor filter list.<br>
<br>
Another option is to specify an approved proxy/caching
proxy/automatically updated mirror strategy that would become an
official part of the Crosswire distribution system, complete with
the ability to revoke modules when necessary (i. e. expiration of a
distribution license/contract). If redistribution is only of
identical files, i.e. not converted to iPub, eSword, or some other
format, that might work within the context of existing licenses. (I
haven't seen the existing licenses, so I'm guessing.) Perhaps there
could be a way to have your desired <b>complete</b> mirrors of the
Crosswire repositories, including Crossway's intellectual property,
if you could show that the new mirror/caching proxy/proxy system was
just a logical extension of the existing repository distribution
system, with the same files going to the same clients.<br>
<br>
Just some food for thought...<br>
<br>
Does that make sense?<br>
<br>
Shalom,<br>
Michael<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mpj.cx">http://mpj.cx</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>