[sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list

Mon Sep 10 06:32:31 MST 2018

Peter, what offered is to participate in civil discussion, and I will
honour that offer, as I hope you will too.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Peter Von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:

>
> You are being told not to discuss your rejected modules, offering test
> modules or distribute modules. As every single technical enquiry sent by
> you was coupled with just this, you are asked to refrain from that too.
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 10. September 2018 um 14:05 Uhr
> *Von:* "Andrew T." <thulester at gmail.com>
> *An:* "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20180910/78080b60/attachment-0001.html>