[sword-devel] Does "Open Source" scare off publishers? [Was: One thing That I would like to see...]

[Chris Little]

Lynn Allan wrote:
> I speculate that Bible publishers are more inclined to be receptive to
> working with "closed source" venders. I would worry if I were them ...
> whether the large expense to translate, publish, and market was "at
> risk" from "crackable" encryption.

That might be a perception that publishers have, but it would be an 
incorrect one.

> How closed is a module if the customized compression is open source in
> a svn available .cpp file?  mod2vpl seems to invite "verse mongers"
> ... as near as I can tell.

We don't rely on compression and closed formats to hide data. Other 
Bible software does, to the extent of my knowledge, do this. Our data is 
actually encrypted. In order to access it you either need the actual 
cipher key to unlock it or you need a PhD in CS with an emphasis in 
cryptography in order to discover an exploit in the cryptographic code.

Last I checked, BibleWorks and OLB both allow you to export the contents 
of full Bibles. They put that facility right in the UI.

> But I am astonished that Bibles such as the ESV, MSG, AMP, etc are
> available at no charge to closed source "vender(s)". To God be the
> glory ... and I believe those publishers are "storing up" some hearty
> "well done good and faithful servant" comments from our Savior.

Remember: we do not know whether the publishers of most Bibles would be 
willing to distribute Bibles in Sword format because we have not asked. 
We have not had the personnel sufficient to seek out distribution rights 
in a professional manner. Legions of users spamming publishers with 
emails saying, "I demand that you give me a free copy of your Bible!" is 
amateurish and pointless.

--Chris