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

[Andrew Thule]

I think the vision of having the module source provider 'contribute'
the module at a site (such as NET coming from crossway) is also a good
one.  That at least means should a single module source be 'shutdown',
others are still available, (even if not containing the module a users
trying to get).  For InstallMgr to support something like this would
be good.

(I spend much time in a heavily mined landlocked South-East Asian
Islamic country where becoming a Christian was punishable by death.
Crosswire was not accessible - and it was a real impediment

How does InstallMgr work when I go to the main Crosswire site and
download a module like KJV (version 2.3) and then update source from
say Crosswire Beta where it sees KJV (version 2.4) and suggests an
update (or is this a Xiphos thing)?

That's very nice 'feature' where it sees the module the same though
the source may be different (I presume by seeing the upgrade to
"Version=" in the .conf file).  Should an install module  software
support multiple sites, it would be very nice to continue recognizing
modules as the same regardless of their source.

~A


On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Troy A. Griffitts
<scribe at crosswire.org> wrote:
> Hey guys.  Thanks for everyone speaking on this thread.  Andrew, I do
> appreciate your offer, I sympathize with your single point of failure and
> widest distribution possible points; however, I tend to agree with the
> replies given on this thread.  The primary benefit I see for a mirror would
> be faster downloads.  I'm not sure we have an issue currently.
>
> Technically:
>
> Changing InstallMgr to 'merge' modules from multiple repositories would be
> simple to do.  This is already done for the concept of global modules
> typically located someplace like /usr/share/sword/ and personal modules
> located at ~/.sword/.  The method to call is:
>
>         /**
>          * Adds books from a new path to the library
>          * @param path the path in which to search for books
>          * @param multiMod whether or not to keep multiple copies of the
> same book if found in different paths
>          *              default - false, uses last found version of the book
>          */
>         virtual void SWMgr::augmentModules(const char *path, bool multiMod =
> false);
>
>
> This would allow a frontend to give a unified list of modules from all
> repositories and would show the latest version available on any repo.  I
> prefer having the repositories separate for the user because it gives a
> certain flavor/theme/endorsement to the modules.  e.g., NET work comes
> directly from bible.org.  Hopefully soon, the ESV will come directly from
> Crossway, and my hope is that this will become a trend.  The Xiphos repo
> hosts brave modules which give newer features, but which might not yet be
> fully tested on all platforms (I hope this is a fair characterization).
>
> The mirror concept is different from this identity separation, I realize,
> but technically, the merging of modules from various mirrors could use the
> same facility.  We would need to tweak the code slightly to add an entry in
> the memory stamp of the loaded .conf to include all the mirrors which
> provide the module, so the frontend could offer a choice to the user and
> then get back to the correct repo to actually request the download, but it
> would be a simple addition and one a frontend could already do easily if
> they wanted to offer such.
>
> Also, technical comment to another item on this thread:
> We do support multiple copies of the same modules, as seen by the final
> parameter of the above method.  The default is false (don't keep multiple
> copies), but this functionality was requested by the Bibletime team a number
> of years ago, and I believe they turn it on by default (or at least they
> used to).  I only saw the benefit for developers, as Karl and David
> mentioned, so I left the default false.
>
> In general, please don't think distribution isn't one of our highest
> priorities.  My entire push to keep the definition of a 'module repository'
> as simple as any installed set of SWORD modules, is fuelled directly from
> that desire-- to technically enable anyone who installs a set a modules, to
> then become a distributor of those modules simply by making their storage
> location available to others.  If I thought sanctioned mirrors would
> legitimately increase Bible distribution, I would endorse the move.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Troy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 07/29/2012 05:07 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Andrew Thule <thulester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Many do. We have opted not to. The extra technical requirements to
>> setup mirroring and ensure it stays synced to the master are not worth
>> the increased benefits to us at this time. If it becomes beneficial in
>> the future then it will be considered. But at this point the costs
>> outweigh the benefits, in the group's collective mind.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Uhh... yes? CrossWire should definitely control its modules. I'm not
>> certain what you're getting at here. CrossWire will license any
>> original works it creates with a very permissive license - GPLv2 for
>> most software or similarly themed licenses for texts. Those, anyone is
>> free to use. When Wycliffe or someone else grants us permission to
>> create a module from one of their texts we negotiate the most
>> permissive license they are willing to allow. We have no control over
>> those modules, so there is nothing we can do besides follow the
>> licenses we were able to negotiate and encourage others to follow them
>> as well.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> If you are the copyright holder, you are welcome to place any modules
>> you create under a repository. You'd even be welcomed to place that
>> repository in the master list so that applications can automatically
>> discover it and offer the source to their users. The Xiphos repository
>> essentially fits this description. It is not officially a part of
>> CrossWire, but it is listed in the autodiscover repository list and is
>> maintained by one of the people in this thread to host modules that he
>> personally wanted to see hosted but which CrossWire didn't or wouldn't
>> host.
>>
>> If you are not the copyright holder then you have to obey the
>> copyright of the source text. For modules like the NIV or the NRSV,
>> which we'd like to distribute, we have been unable to come to terms
>> with their copyright holders. So we can't distribute those and,
>> legally, you couldn't either. The same goes for non-Bible matieral. If
>> you want to post copyrighted modules in your personal repository
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> CrossWire can distribute its sources out across mirrors and multiple
>> sites if it wants to. If we wanted to host the modules off of S3, we
>> could do that. If we wanted to acquire a second site hosted in London
>> to duplicate our data as a failover location, we could do that. So
>> long as the sites are CrossWire, there is no limitation to CrossWire
>> distributing the modules from only its one server located in Arizona.
>> However, we just don't see any need (and yes, we understand the
>> benefits and drawbacks) for distributed mirrors at this time. Maybe
>> that will change in the future, maybe not. Maybe Troy will jump in at
>> this point in the coversation and say, "You know what, I think we
>> should."
>>
>> But those modules which are licensed for CrossWire's distribution
>> only, we are no the ones to place that restriction. The copyright
>> holders have done so. We graciously thank them for being so generous
>> with their text and attempt jealously to guard the copyright according
>> to the owner's wishes. We would like that restriction lifted, because
>> we do encourage people to download modules that are helpful to them
>> onto CD or USB stick and hand them to friends and family and
>> co-workers. That could very much be a violation of such a license, if
>> those people are not part of CrossWire. Thus, we try to avoid that
>> license if possible, but if that is the only terms under which a
>> content owner will license their text, we have to abide by that.
>>
>> --Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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