[sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list

Mon Sep 10 06:05:08 MST 2018

All of this was very helpful and I think it does expose the raw point
here.  I haven’t been afforded the opportunity to present the case for DSS
yet - you won’t allow me to participate in it.  But even if that’s the case
that’s not what I react to.

When I ask other questions, legitimate questions, about module
construction, error questions for example, I get hostilility.  This
community should not have its lepers! Please let’s agree to let that stop.
I understand Michael’s point, that you are trying to protect this
community.  You should be lauded for it; but there’s a right way and a
wrong way.  Telling members to ‘move on’ is not in the same spirit as
laying out detailed posts about community practice and expectation.

With respect to DSS publication, Ill start a separate thread to keep
threads consistent.  Please, all be civil and patient on that thread.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:54 PM refdoc at gmx.net <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:

> All of these in my last post are more or less real life examples. Stuff we
> have seen and I have dealt with. The examples are just that. In the end
> there are sometimes judgment calls, particularly where things are tricky.
> Non signature to Berne and late introduction of copyrights is really tricky
> as there are all kinds of implications. None of us are lawyers and as
> Michael points out, a visit by the copyright police could cause real grief.
> So we are very cautious, maybe sometimes too cautious.
>
> The DSS modules are English texts, scholarly translations from the qumran
> scrolls. Given the time scales, there is no doubt that the English
> translations are in copyright. Only a fool will debate this. So , while we
> would be delighted to publish them, we can only do so if we get either
> specific permission by the copyright holders to publish them or are pointed
> at convincing verbiage by the publisher that anyone who wants can freely
> redistribute, as long as they abide by conditions x, y or x. There is NO
> other way we would ever contemplate to publish these. Nor is there any need
> to discuss this further. Nor do we want links or offers to access to
> modules created despite our refusal to contemplate these modules further on
> our mailing list
>
> There is ample discussion of these modules in our archive, which I might
> bump up if I come round to it. The bottom line is that we neither received
> permissions from the publisher nor were pointed at relevant free use
> verbiage, but instead were entertained by increasing curious interpretation
> of the law as we do (not) know it. Any objection to this was countered with
> more of what you see already unfolding on the other thread and here
> presumably now soon too.
>
> There are points at which I lose my will to live. The DSS "debates" have
> often brought me close to that. If in the course of this I have offended,
> upset or worried anyone other than the originator of these debate, then I
> am very sorry. In that particular direction I have though a very clear
> conscience. Unwillingness to abide by community rules will ultimately lead
> to exclusion from the community. New inclusion is always possible, but it
> requires at least some clear indication of willingness to abide now by the
> rules.....
>
>
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird
> autocorrects.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list
> From: refdoc at gmx.net
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum
> CC:
>
>
> Good question, much is ad hoc but in the end this is how things usually
> run:
>
> 1) "I am working on this Bible text in my language. The text us ancient,
> around 200 years old, but still very relevant for my country's church. I
> have put my source text into Github and would be grateful about some coding
> advice" thanks, no questions, all are happy.
>
> 2) " I am the technical guy of the Bible society of X and we want to make
> our new translation wider available. Can some help me to fix A, B and C , I
> can make the full module available to testers. Our director will write a
> letter to your module team regarding distribution rights as module" thanks
> no problem. Discuss your preliminaries and technical examples with original
> text if necessary here on the list.
>
> 3) "I have obtained the text of the NIV by scraping this website.... Can
> you help to fix my module?" Sorry, stop right here, we do not want any
> discussion about this and certainly do not want it here.
>
> 4) I have created a module of this translation into my language , the
> translation is from 1960, still in copyright, but our bible society is
> publishhing the text with a license allowing free redistribution as long As
> the text remains unchanged. " " thanks, sounds really interesting, can you
> point us at where it says that you can freely redistribute?"
>
> 5)" I believe that the Bible should never be copyrighted and have created
> a collection of modules of modern translations to make use of my belief."
> No debate necessary, move on please. But do not stay here.
>
> 6)" I am making use of this scholarly edition, and while it is only 30
> years old, I believe I am justified to make a module because scientist
> crave nothing more than exposure and use of the text as a module should be
> allowed under academic freedom and further interesting theories of
> copyright exemptions in which only I believe, but I am due I am right. ", "
> well, we do not agree and we do not recognise your exemptions on the k away
> as we know it, so please do not advertise or discuss your new modules here.
> "
>
> 7) "I am making use of this scholarly edition and the editors and
> copyright holders are really keen to see it in module form, where can they
> send a letter to confirm this?" "Right here, right here, many thanks,
> brilliant news"
>
> 8) My country is an interesting one, as it has never subscribed to the
> Berne convention, but it introduced copyright in 1987. Everything before is
> under public domain. Can I publish this Bible in my language, it was
> published in 1985.?" Ah, this is an interesting one...
>
>
> This is the process, if you want to call it so. Played itself out hundreds
> of times on sword-devel. Works usually well. Very few people really do not
> get it.
>
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird
> autocorrects.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list
> From: "Andrew T."
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum
> CC:
>
>
> This is very helpful Peter.  Thank you.
>
> However, I’d like to ask about enforcement.
> Does a module actually need to be submitted to the project to be judged?
> Or is it sufficient to judge modules the project has never seen by simply
> judging the reputation of the person working on them?
>
> What is the process for initiating this scrutiny?
> I ask only because you seem able to judge modules you’ve never seen, while
> casting doubt upon them.
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:28 AM refdoc at gmx.net <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Just as a reminder.
>>
>> CrossWise does respect copyrights and takes in general a very cautious
>> view in these matters.
>>
>> If there is a hint of a doubt regarding the public domain status we do
>> not publish a text unless we have permissions. Whether explicit or via free
>> licensing (Creative Commons and the like). If we believe we require
>> explicit permissions then we welcome the assistance of community members to
>> obtain these, but in the end it will always be the module team or the
>> director who needs to receive the permissions from the copyright owner.
>>
>> In this way we have on occasion forgone texts we really would like to
>> publish and other projects felt free to publish, but we still believe that
>> this approach has born fruit.
>>
>> There are occasionally situations where people decided that the only
>> likely approach to convince a copyright owner to grant permissions is to
>> create a module as showcase. This is a potentially risky undertaking, but
>> clearly who does so believes that the risk is acceptable for them
>> personally. As long as such modules are not discussed (explicitely or
>> implicitly)'or offered on the list for testing purposes or otherwise and as
>> long as these people do not describe themselves as community members of
>> CrossWire to the publishers, there clearly is little risk that this
>> approach will affect the project negatively either legally or
>> reputationwise.
>>
>> Beyond the above, some jurisdictions will permit private use, reuse and
>> transformation of texts otherwise restricted. This is great for
>> individuals, but it does not enable us as an entity to assist with this.
>> Please do not discuss your attempts in this way here.
>>
>> Further, we do not promote or permit onwards distribution of modules
>> unless they are in the public domain or the copyright owners have
>> explicitly permitted such onward distribution.To set up a "mirror" other
>> that non publicly accessible strictly private is not acceptable.
>>
>> Finally there are of course valid debates to be had in general regarding
>> copyright for Biblical texts  and many of us will have private views quite
>> different from what we uphold as a project. That is fine, as long as we can
>> maintain the commitment to the cautious corporate  approach described above
>> as a community. Sword-devel is not the place to have lengthy debates on
>> these matters and persistently pushing the boundaries in this or any of the
>> above matters is not an acceptable thing to do.
>>
>> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird
>> autocorrects.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird
>> autocorrects.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20180910/db9d9e6d/attachment.html>