[sword-devel] Often-requested yet never-available Bibles

Immanuel Jeyaraj immiraja at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 20:16:55 MST 2009

On 7/25/09, jonathon <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 20:25, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
>> because (for no good reason I can  fathom) eSword has managed to convince
>> *ALL*
> a)  You may not realize it, but over 50% of the user created resources
> that are distributed for e-Sword, are being distributed in violation
> of copyright, EULAs, and other Intellectual Property Rights;
> b)  Since roughly  2003, e-Sword and/or Pocket e-Sword tend  to come
> at the top of the  list, in terms of popularity of gratis Bible Study
> Software.
> For the Commercial Bible Study Software companies, _The Sword
> Project_, as a whole doesn't register.  If any specific front end
> registers on their radar, it is only as blip out there, doing nothing
> in their market.
> e-Sword, OTOH, is perceived as a marketing threat.  One of the
> oddities is that despite the different niches that the commercial
> Bible Study Software programs occupy, their fear is that e-Sword will
> add  components/tools that are  "almost good  enough", and as such,
> remove their "low end"  clients", leaving them chasing a market
> further and further up the product chain.
> IOW, with _The Sword Project_, there is  no digital tipping point.
> With e-Sword, the digital tipping  point is too close for comfort.
> (This is as true, if not more true for Logos, than it is  for any
> other Bible Study Software program. That Logos has far more components
> than e-Sword will have, is utterly irrelevant.)
>> the publishers of interest  to publish in that format.
> If any  organization has  "publishers of interest" locked up, it is
> Libronox Digital Library Systems. Truth is, Bob has hired people with
> an extensive array of contacts in the  publishing world, and  has also
> made Logos the premium Windows Bible Study Program. That combination
> looks very attractive to publishers.  When their  Mac  offering is
> better than Accordance, they will be even more attractive to
> publishers.
>> Why can't we in this project get that kind of publisher respect?
> Obviously  my perspective is biased.
> The biggest factors I see are:
> * How the different organizations handle money;
> * Closed source versus Open Source;
> * Demographics;
> * Downloaded copies, and percieved market penetration;
>> What is it about the possibility of Sword module production that so
>> repulses publishers?
> a)   Open Source Software scares content owners.  Their understanding
> is that open source means that their  content will be distributed to
> all and sundry, with _no_  financial, or other benefit to the original
> content owner;
> b) The publishing world is based very much on who knows you. If you
> don't have an extensive  network in that industry, you won't get
> anywhere.  If you do have an extensive network,  you might get
> somewhere;
> jonathon
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Sent from my mobile device

Warmest regards,
Immanuel Jeyaraj
+91 94457 69518

More information about the sword-devel mailing list