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

[Andrew Thule]

Thanks Peter, I'm not so interested in the motives of those
contributing the modules or the process by which they are vetted.  I
wasn't specifically asking from a Crosswire repo perspective and I
have no doubt these go through a careful filter process.  Rather I'm
more interesting in finding out how I might validate the pedigree of a
translation not currently in the main repo, whose text is (nearly)
publicly available (meaning readily accessible).

I'd be doing the one taking the text, adding mark-up into OSIS, and I
know my own motivation. I don't know how to determine if there are
copyright encumbrances on the translation, and wouldn't necessarily be
submitting the outcome to Crosswire. So, though I suspect there are no
copyright encumbrance because of the age of the translation, I would
still like to be sure. I'd thus like to figure out how to trace this
back for myself.

~A

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
> On 30/07/12 17:10, Andrew Thule wrote:
>> Troy does this mean that with respect to the modules you host, you go
>> through the rigamarole  of tracing back to source the copyright status
>> for the sake of due diligence?
>
> Yes. We have been caught out, we will get caught out again, no doubt,
> but we will always err on the side of caution if we do not know exactly
> where we are with a text.
>
>> I'd like to know more about establishing a text's
>> pedigree.
>
> There are three potential problems with a text which should be public
> domain.
>
> 1) The text is not the text it claims to be. Not unusual. A language X
> has an old bible translation which is definitely PD. We get a text,
> stating this is the old translation and then it transpires that it is in
> fact a much newer translation. Usually this is a mistake, occasionally
> it is malice.
>
> 2) The text is the text we think it is, but someone has edited/updated
> it. This is very hard sometimes as the edits might be subtle and not
> easily recognisable. They might even be deliberately hidden in order to
> establish a spurious copyright.
>
> 3) The text is the text we think it is, but it has been mutilated by
> poor copying, multiple format transformations, KJVifying and
> de-KJVifying in terms of versification, ripping out bits which are not
> deemed to be canonical enough by whoever handled it before etc etc.
>
> As a solution to above - We tend not to accept texts from just about
> everyone, but are very careful. If a text is PD, we do not accept in
> general a module, but ask for a link back to a authorative website where
> the text is hosted. We do ask questions who copied from whom and we
> generally whittle things down fast.
>
> We certainly do not accept texts (after poor experiences) from
> non-CrossWire bible software projects.
>
> When running our import routines, missing verses and odd versifications
> become obvious usually and this again highlights poor texts. There are
> other signs of poor text quality.
>
> Most of the texts we have imported over the last 3-4 years are directly
> from publishers (Bible societies etc) and others are from bona fide and
> often long established transcription projects.
>
> Hope this makes sense.
>
> Peter
>>
>> ~A
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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