<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Regarding module development, that wasn't the problem (though there may be other problems with that). The problem was the distribution of the developed module. Permission for CrossWire to distribute a module does not extend to its members individually. I maintain the ESV module (which is about to be released with an update). As such I cannot distribute it from my home server. It can only be distributed from the CrossWire server.<div><br></div><div>Regarding module submission there are several parts to module submission that play into whether the work will be accepted:</div><div>Source of the text: It has to be a primary text.</div><div>Verification with sword-devel or sword-support, that the module needs to be updated and that the update would be accepted.</div><div>Submission of the uncompiled module and its conf to <a href="mailto:modules@crosswire.org">modules@crosswire.org</a></div><div><br></div><div>See <a href="http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/DevTools:Modules">http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/DevTools:Modules</a> for more details.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding verification there are a variety of reasons that a module might not be accepted. Here are a few:</div><div>Poor choice of source text.</div><div>Poor choice of format and encoding (Bibles should be OSIS and UTF-8)</div><div>Bad OSIS (TEI, ThML, ...).</div><div>The module doesn't work in one or more front-ends.</div><div>CrossWire doesn't have necessary permission for the module.</div><div>Failure to have a repeatable process to create the module from the source.</div><div>Someone else is actively working on the module.</div><div>Someone else has a better text.</div><div>Someone else has a repeatable process.</div><div>The current maintainer of the module hasn't been in the loop.</div><div><br></div><div>There isn't a checklist for these. I've just noticed over time that these have been reasons to reject a module.</div><div><br></div><div>Hope this helps,</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>DM Smith</div><div><br><div><div>On Jan 6, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Andrew Thule <<a href="mailto:thulester@gmail.com">thulester@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Chris Little <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chrislit@crosswire.org" target="_blank">chrislit@crosswire.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
I credit you for taking it down, but you haven't explained why YOU felt it was YOUR place to do it in the first place. 'Andrew Thule posts the module on his FTP site' is not part of our release process.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Because I was trying to help. I assumed that module development was covered under licenses, and have no other way to share modules I create with members of this list.<br><br></div><div>The wiki doesn't prohibit the sharing of Copyrighted modules under development, so it was reasonable to assume since the module itself was being distributed to the word, modules being developed could be distributed also.<br>
<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br></div>
Yet, why would that have anything at all to do with you? You have no connection to the publishers, you didn't do the conversion, and you are in no way a part of the release process.<br>
<br>
You say you checked the distribution rights presented in isv.conf, but it contained exactly the string present in those modules that we have told you in the past that you may not re-distribute. You prevent reading of other such .confs on your FTP site, so you're clearly aware that this is material you should not be re-distributing. But you did it anyway, because you're content to act without thinking.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I'm a member of this list, trying to help, volunteering my time, and Nic's question wasn't directed at anyone in particular. He was asking about a version of the ISV which contained the OT, which I had.<br>
<br>Why wouldn't it have anything to do with me? Is there something somewhere that says only certain members of this list can help? Where does it say only those folks directly connected to the publisher can make improvements?<br>
<br></div><div>Yes, as in my other response, you're still pressing away at the false idea I ignored the licenses. You still have to clarify that bit with respect to who can and who cannot offer improvements and whether or not development is excluded from 'distribution'. I was offering an improved module (and OSIS) TO Crosswire for distribution by Crosswire's repo.<br>
<br></div><div>I admit that my thinking is limited at times. In this case it is limited by what I don't know - which is why you've been asked for clarification.<br><br></div><div>~A<br></div></div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br><a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>