And a final word,<br><br>The majority of these interactions are quiet, easy going and altogether business like and friendly. If there are things we must reject I can count on one hand in 14 years of CrossWire volunteering where this has caused grief. Many times rejections are interim as Michael points out and are followed by subsequent acceptances, for the original or other modules - because the vast majority of contributors take a rejection in the way Michael describes and move on towards fixing whatever caused the rejection or alternatively onto looking at different texts with clearer copyright situation. <br><br>FWIW, my first module submissions were rejected by Chris Little, which sent me onto a whole new journey of negotiating proper permissions for what I wanted to see published. <br><br>Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list<br>From: refdoc@gmx.net<br>To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel@crosswire.org><br>CC: <br><br><br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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. <br><br>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<br><br>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. <br><br>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..... <br><br><br><br>Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list<br>From: refdoc@gmx.net<br>To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel@crosswire.org><br>CC: <br><br><br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good question, much is ad hoc but in the end this is how things usually run:<br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>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?"<br><br>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. <br><br>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. "<br><br>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"<br><br>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... <br><br><br>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.<br><br><br>Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list<br>From: "Andrew T." <thulester@gmail.com><br>To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel@crosswire.org><br>CC: <br><br><br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto">This is very helpful Peter. Thank you.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">However, I’d like to ask about enforcement.</div></div><div dir="auto">Does a module actually need to be submitted to the project to be judged?</div><div dir="auto">Or is it sufficient to judge modules the project has never seen by simply judging the reputation of the person working on them?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What is the process for initiating this scrutiny?</div><div dir="auto">I ask only because you seem able to judge modules you’ve never seen, while casting doubt upon them.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:28 AM <a href="mailto:refdoc@gmx.net">refdoc@gmx.net</a> <<a href="mailto:refdoc@gmx.net">refdoc@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Just as a reminder.<br>
<br>
CrossWise does respect copyrights and takes in general a very cautious view in these matters.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org" target="_blank">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>