[sword-devel] Copyright info

[David Burry]

Well, glad to hear it, perhaps I stand corrected in everything negative I
said...  :-P  That would be nice!  ;o)

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Troy A. Griffitts" <scribe@crosswire.org>
To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: [sword-devel] Copyright info


> I'll let Jonathan reply more authoritatively, but in my experience,
> copyright holders and Bible Societies don't mistrust us or see us in any
> poor light.  We've never had a complaint about locked modules.  We
> actually don't even distribute locked modules on our public site any
> longer, but even when we did, we didn't have any complaints.  My
> experience is that the organizations that have truely taken the time to
> hear our requests, and have responded unfavorable, have mostly expressed
> that they have commitments to other projects.  I think a commited effort
> to research and contact the decision-making person at more organizations
> is the needed ingredient.  Jonathan has taken on this role and has made
> a great initial effort.
>
>
> David Burry wrote:
> > I don't think the main issue is open vs closed source (well to some it
may
> > be) but I think the main issue for most copyright holders that distrust
> > sword is.... what the heck are the locked modules FOR if they're not
legal?
> > If they're not legal, dump them until permission is granted so that they
ARE
> > legal!
> >
> > Even locked modules are still texts being sucked into a new format and
> > distributed without the copyright holder's permission.  And certain
"key"
> > people have the keys (no pun intended), and do share them amongst
themselves
> > for "testing" purposes...  _this_ is probably the main reason why some
> > copyright holders distrust sword...  in my opinion one way to gain their
> > trust is to never even accept a locked module until you have permission
to
> > distribute it locked.  Some societies will always be untrusting and we
can't
> > help that, but that at least may help this issue.
> >
> > Also if someone invents a way to legally distribute the keys and pay
> > royalties, that would be another way that would gain a lot of trust.
But so
> > far we haven't needed this because we can get the keys ourselves for
> > "testing" purposes and then we don't need to invent such a process
because
> > we have the keys and we the developers are happy.  This is a very
selfish
> > attitude as well as makes us seem untrustworthy.   Darn, nobody's gonna
send
> > me a key now... ;o)
> >
> > Ok, I'm off my soap box, and ducking all the stuff you're gonna throw at
> > me... I don't mean to be disrespectful of anyone, just trying to think
about
> > it from a copyright holder's perspective.  They simply see us as a bunch
of
> > scary hackers that are into distributing texts illegally, some people on
> > this list really are (most of us aren't), and the way this locked module
> > thing is being handled even gives those copyright holders grounds for
> > thinking some more of us are who aren't.
> >
> > Copyright holders want accountability, control, some legal entity to
hold
> > responsible, and/or money, plain and simple, we're giving them very
little
> > to none of these so far.  If a copyright holder said "give me a list of
all
> > individuals who have downloaded and unlocked x module" could we answer?
> > Nope.  They want this kind of control over their works, at least some
sort
> > of registration process so we can give an accurate count even if we
don't
> > share personal details, along with the ability to pay a royalty and
return
> > it to the copyright holder based on head count.
> >
> > Many people on this list do find this royalty thing disgusting, and
well,
> > that's it... therefore they distrust us too... plain and simple.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Glenn Reed" <glenn.r@ihug.co.nz>
> > To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 9:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Is sword going non-gpl or proprietory?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Thanks for clearing that up for me.  Well making it a little clearer
> >
> > anyway.
> >
> >>>Well, first, there are no plans to license as anything other than GPL.
> >>>Second, there has never been any suggestion that we go to any license
> >>
> > that
> >
> >>>is not open-source except by those who see this as a way of convincing
> >>>copyright holders that Sword is secure.
> >>
> >>You mention that there are some that suggest closed source as a means of
> >>getting the copyright holders on board.  Has this line been suggested by
> >
> > some
> >
> >>of the bible societies or by members of sword who have speculated that
the
> >>attitude of bible societies might change "if ...... " ?
> >>
> >>If access to the source code is guaranteed then I guess this is a
> >
> > non-issue.
> >
> >>I would hate to see this project hijacked by commercial interests.
> >>
> >>What does surprise me is the "apparent" attitude of the bible societies
> >>towards this project.  At least from the (very) short time I have been
> >>following the issues surrounding this.  It seems that certain copyright
> >>modules are locked but more to the point that there is no way to
purchase
> >
> > the
> >
> >>keys for these locked modules??  That there is this great distrust
between
> >>the bible societies and sword.  To put it bluntly I am astonished that
the
> >>bible societies want to put a stumbling block towards the spreading of
the
> >>gospel.  Does anyone know how long active lobbying of the bible
societies
> >
> > has
> >
> >>been happening?  And why it seems that so few of them have been willing
to
> >>alter thier positiion???
> >>
> >>And perhaps as a corollary to the above issue, how will I as a developer
> >
> > get
> >
> >>access to the locked modules.  Also will any translation I contribute to
> >>sword, such as CLV, simply disappear into a void?
> >>
> >>Glenn Reed.
> >>
> >>On Monday 09 September 2002 04:13 pm, you wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Glenn Reed wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I read this from the mailing list.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>First it is GPL--this is
> >>>>>>the last GPL component in the library.  If it were replaced with
> >>>>>>something else, we could license Sword under non-GPL licenses to
> >>>>>>other entities (e.g. Bible societies that don't want to deal with
> >>>>>>GPL's restrictions) or put it out publicly under a license that we
> >>>>>>write that better meets our needs than the GPL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>My feeling is that the great advantage of sword is that it is GPL.  If
> >>>
> > it
> >
> >>>>ever went closed source (perhaps due to pressure from certain bible
> >>>>societies??) I would be forced to pursue other options :(
> >>>>
> >>>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Just to re-iterate, we're not going closed source.
> >>>
> >>>--Chris
> >>
>
>