[sword-devel] Legitimate FTP Mirrors & Module Distribution Rights Question

[Greg Hellings]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Thule <thulester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg, thanks for your response
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I has, since at least the time I started with SWORD in 2004, always
>> supported multiple install locations. The only difficulty I'm aware of
>> comes with automatic updating if module ABC exists in Repository 1 and
>> Repository 2 - currently InstallMgr has no way of knowing which one is
>> the source of the currently installed ABC and thus it cannot determine
>> from which source an update should be pulled. But it has always
>> supported including multiple sources.
>
> How is this the responsibility of InstallMgr?  If Module ABC exists in
> two (or more) repositories, and Crosswire has permitted repositories
> on the grounds that they be reflective of the main site, does it
> matter if InstallMgr gets the module from site X vs site Y?  As far as
> IntallMgr is concerned if the module was obtained from Site X it will
> always seek updates from Site X.
>
> If the user tries to install from Site Y, InstallMgr should be smart
> enough to reinstall from Site Y (you can currently reinstall modules
> from the same site), but then associate that module with Site Y,
> removing its record in Site X.  The module should always be associated
> with the site it was download from (last), should it not?  Likewise it
> should always look for updates from the same source subject to be
> changed.

It should. It does not. AFAIK it currently maintains no status
information on whether ABC came from site X, site Y, a local install
file, or was manually inserted into the install location. Since
modules are just a collection of files on a disk bound together by a
conf file, there is no way of preventing a user from unzipping a
module she received in email into the folder. If that module is named
ABC then InstallMgr will assume it is the same module as ABC from
source X and offer an upgrade if the local version is less than site
X's version.

If this has changed, then it is a recent change or it is a change that
a particular application has added support for (doing so would be
possible and has been discussed some on application mailing lists, but
I'm unaware of any which have implemented this type of support).

>
>
>> None of the modules I am aware of specify the particular manner in
>> which Crosswire must or must not distribute the module. There are
>> some, I believe, which limit to only Sword format which we try to
>> avoid now as that prevents the creation of GoBible installers for the
>> text and so on. However, there are none that currently specify "from
>> only the primary www.crosswire.org server" or such.
>
> This is good news (not as good as the Good News Christ gave us, but
> good nonetheless.
>
>
>> I would imagine Crosswire would do so if the issue ever arises that
>> the server becomes unreliable (such as happened for a brief time this
>> past Spring) or if the bandwidth requirements for modules alone became
>> more than the current host provides. However, there are no such plans
>> at the moment that have been discussed openly, thus it is safe to
>> assume that there are no such plans at present.
>
> I offer to host a mirror (freely) should Crosswire ever decide to do
> this. (I currently own a company that hosts other very high bandwidth,
> high-availablity sties (sites such as bash.org) so this isn't an idle
> offer)
>
>
>> So long as the license requirements are fulfilled, there is nothing
>> preventing redistribution. As I recall, the initial reaction to your
>> announcement was not that you must take it down but that you must
>> filter those modules which are licensed for only Crosswire's
>> distribution. Any modules which are in the Public Domain or which have
>> licenses that do not restrict their distribution to e.g. CrossWire
>> only, you are free to mirror. However, you would have to manually
>> create such a list by inspecting each module's license individually by
>> hand.
>
> So mirrors authorized by Crosswire do not qualify as distributed by
> Crosswire under 'CrossWire only'? Does that not say that Crosswire
> will never distribute 'Crosswire only' modules from any place other
> than one central site - unless it develops a process for authorizing
> 'official mirrors'.  If Crosswire specifically has some process which
> grants and revokes official status as a mirror, could that then
> redistribute these modules?

The answer to that is "above my pay grade". I would imagine, if there
are official mirrors, they would be covered under CrossWire's
distribution limits but I don't know that.

--Greg