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

[Andrew Thule]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
>> I really don't see your point about this.
> To second that - there is essentially no point.

Many publicly available repositories replicate themselves.  (Take
Sourceforge for example).  There are many reason why they do this.
Lower latency in downloads for example, fewer router hops between
client and source download, load balance downloads by distributing
them across multiple sites, reduce available from single point of
failure, and yes even security.  There are places in the world that
filter or monitor sites because of the word 'cross'.  The point should
be obious, suggesting Crosswire consider replicating itself (the site)
and it's module repository has benefits such as no single point of
failure etc - that is unless the chief concern is not text
distribution.

> People who access us from countries which control their internet and
> want to block the Bible, need to be cautious and come through proxies,
> tor or whatever or obtain stuff via CDs, USB sticks etc.

This might be your preference, but should Crosswire really control
it's own module distribution once it makes them available?

> Providing secondary download sources in the hope that they will not be
> observed while our main ones are - this is silly and actually more
> dangerous than going the long way via e.g. tor

Well such a scenario is only one possible benefit.  Tor nodes may also
be filtered (have you ever tried to look at a books.google.com book
through the Tor network for example?)   The benefit of Tor networks is
not that that they get around domain-name restrictions, but that they
get around tracing relationships between client and server.  Likewise,
if someone wanted to monitor access to sword modules (technically)
they would need look at but a single site. But again, this is somewhat
of a tangent.

> The offer is kind, is appreciated, but is essentially one which makes no
> sense to us, increases our opportunity costs and therefore should be
> declined.

No worries.  The goal wasn't to necessarily host a crosswise mirror
(though that was the offer) but to to ask Crosswire's philosophy on
module distribution. I wondered about how to provide maximum
dissemination to Sword modules in my possession not in the main repo,
some of which have not had their distribution rights negotiated.  I'd
like to balance licensing restrictions against broad availability.
Having them at a single site neither distributes risk, and represents
a single point of failure.  Similarly, if the applications of rights
such as "Copyrighted; Permission to distribute granted to CrossWire"
implies that module redistribution becomes restricted to one site only
- that likely shouldn't be the license attached to the module. (On the
other hand if Crosswire asserted it's right to text re-distribution
though through a sanctioned mirror program - I'd have less issue with
it).

> But we have been down this route of discussion already.

As far as I could tell, I was unable to find in the list archives
anywhere Crosswire had clarified that it wished to restrict Sword
module distribution for "Copyrighted; Permission to distribute granted
to CrossWire" modules to itself and control their re-distribution.
You've now answered that question which is good.


> In summary we welcome new volunteers, we are very happy for people to
> scratch their own itches instead of doing only what has been done before
> or following a prescribed programme, but some things simply do not make
> a lot of sense.

I didn't realize seeking clarification was an itch.  The 'proscribed
programme' you speak of wasn't clear.  It is clearer now.


> I am sure you have skills aplenty which could be usefully employed. Your
> bandwith though likely not. At least not in this moment.

Thanks, but this series of questions wasn't about me but about
Crosswire's policy which you've spoken to.

~A