I continue to get the following build errors with the python bindings using
the following:
#cmake -DSWORD_BINDINGS="Perl Python" ../sword
CUT ...
[ 90%] Generating Sword.cxx
/usr/local/src/sword/include/multimapwdef.h:26: Warning 389: operator[]
ignored (consider using %extend)
/usr/local/s
of the CMake toolchain, I find myself
> doing it frequently, but most of the time it shouldn't be necessary. I have
> made quite a few changes over the past few months, though, to accommodate a
> number of enhancements, usually related to the bindings.
>
> --Greg
>
>
> On Thu
I'm still fairly new to using CMAKE (but liking it). I'm finally starting
to feel comfortable with its use, but still have questions .. so if this is
a newbie question, sorry.
Using traditional "./configure; make; make install' I could simply grab a
more recent copy (of sword) via svn and make &&
, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> If you monitored the proper message stream you'd see I have created a
> patch which attempts to fix this compile problem but introduces a minor
> display bug in the process (module text will not display at all...).
>
> --Greg
>
>
.. and thinking about it, you're correct. Something had changed on my end,
namely the Sword revision I was running. I had forgotten about that, until
you pointed it out.
~A
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> I was Karl. Thanks for the heads up. I look forward
I was Karl. Thanks for the heads up. I look forward to your fixes (no
rush).
~A
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> If you're trying to build Xiphos against recently updated Sword, it's
> going to be a mess right now. I'll deal with it by week's end.
>
> ___
Has something changed in the Xiphos build?
I've had no problems until 4411 (last successful build before was 4408).
The build starts off ok:
[ 42/130] cxx: src/backend/module_manager.cc ->
build/default/src/backend/module_manager_1.o
[ 43/130] cxx: src/backend/sword_main.cc ->
build/default/src/
ly gather from all these posts! :)
>
>
> Thanks, ybic
> nic... :)
>
> On 24/01/2013, at 5:18 AM, Peter von Kaehne >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Von: Andrew Thule >
> >> There are Pros and Cons either way (resource usage and download time
>
Peter, if I offended you, I hope you'll forgive me.
~A
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
> > Von: Andrew Thule >
> > There are Pros and Cons either way (resource usage and download time
> > being considerations) as you point out.
>
>
23, 2013, DM Smith wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 11:02 AM, "Peter von Kaehne"
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Von: Andrew Thule >
> >
> >> The nice thing about when
> >> repo administrators do this, is when you get a module from tha
Daniel, the indexes themselves are created using the utility mkfastmod. If
built, the lucene indexes typically sit off of the modules directory
directly .. ie:
.../modules/texts/ztext/kjv/lucene
Administrators of a repo, you can generate the lucene directories, and have
them automatically associ
Some versions of Ubuntu don't come with SFTP support included in CURL
(because of --without-libssh2 being set). If this is the case,
instructions to ensure SFTP is available in curl and libcurl can be found
here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/curl/+bug/311029
~A
On Fri, Dec 28, 20
To add .. the cmake build works, it is only the traditional
./configure;make;make install that appears broken.
~A
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> I just grabbed a fresh copy of sword via svn.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Troy A. Griffitts
&
I just grabbed a fresh copy of sword via svn.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
In anticipation of a new release, I have a large checkin I'm about to
commit which will break everything for everyone compiling with -Werror.
The Makefile that comes with sword uses the -Werro
people have said here is
> correct and that you do not understand any of this legal mumbo jumbo at
> all, and hence I think you should cease trying to educate others and
> instead simply cede to Troy and if you wish to help with this project,
> follow his lead, asking him what he wants
ge repos. Sorry for the top post'
>
> Nic Carter 'niccar...@mac.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sent from my phone, hence this email may be short...
>>
>> On 08/01/2013, at 8:51, Andrew Thule > 'cvml', 'thules...@gmail.com');>>
t;>
>>
>> Sent from my phone, hence this email may be short...
>>
>> On 08/01/2013, at 8:51, Andrew Thule wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> As long as Crosswire has policies in place govererning official mirrors
>> there should no no worries mirrors are out o
If I have a recommendation it is to download the KJV.zip and use the OSIS
examples in their as templates ...
~A
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Pola Edward <5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Could anyone help ?!
>
> --
> From: 5...@hotmail.com
> To: sword-devel@crosswire.org
Pola, I was looking at it to recreate the problem.
I created a test module with the snippet you provided, and was having
issues of my own, so I don't yet know what the issue is, but I'm still
looking ...
~A
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Pola Edward <5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Could anyone help
No options. Just cmake ../sword
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, Ben wrote:
> I haven't been seeing that. Is that when you run cmake? What options are
> you using?
>
> On 01/09/2013 09:54 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>> Are you seeing a problem with $SWORDSRC/src/ut
kefiles and build process.
>
> -Ben
>
> On 01/04/2013 05:42 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>> I'm curious, why do people seem to prefer cmake to make? Is that a
>> python thing?
>>
>> ~A
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Greg H
Agreed. That's another way of stating it: until Crosswire decides on the
issue, there's no sense in developers discussing it..
~A
On Monday, January 7, 2013, Nic Carter wrote:
>
> Sent from my phone, hence this email may be short...
>
> On 08/01/2013, at 8:51,
or linked to on sword-devel. Please refrain
> from making this material available from the link you have posted here on
> sword-devel or your ability to post to sword-devel will be revoked.
>
> Sincerely, with all good wishes,
>
> Troy
>
>
>
> On 01/07/2013 09:09 PM, Andre
ssue with having modules in both the normal repo and the (old?) beta
> repository. The frontends give a false impression as to which module came
> from which repository.
>
>
>
> On 7 January 2013 19:50, DM Smith wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
DM,
Let's not reopen the DSS issue, thought it is the same issue. Crosswire is
not the Copyright Owner of a single DSS translations. So as long as
Crosswire is playing no official role in their digitization or
distribution, CrossWire has absolutely nothing to say on the matter.
That said, I was
ibits that), oh dear (I'm not the only one with a
problem then)!
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
> > Von: Andrew Thule
> > It may be the case that the ISV foundations license to Crosswire is not
> as
> > restritive as Peter and Chris cla
deals with,
or it does. If it doesn't there are larger problems than me sharing a
module. If its does, those terms must be passed on with the work (under
copyright law).
~A
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>
> Each copyright owner has several fields in the conf that they can fill out
> with that information. Most use the About field. A few use some other
> fields. Consult the module's conf for the information that you want. If it
> is not there then
nd Y. For what ever reason, X has
> A, B, C, D and Y has A, D, E. Software is configured to use Y. When it goes
> to get a list of files, what does it get? If it requests B, what does it
> get? Same questions for software configured for X and request for E.
>
> -- DM
>
>
> On J
o the 'owner' of a module is before making any modifications but will
> then be encouraged to participate is circumstances allow.
>
> 6. Sword and JSword so not cope well with repositories hosting the same
> module. This is a further reason for discouraging the instalation of
hat is
what we're talking about.
~A
.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> > What I did have a hard time with was being publicly held accountable to
> > license restrictions reasonably unknown
(since what restrictions allowances applied to
CrossWire, also apply to users).
~A
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, DM Smith wrote:
> >
> >> No, we
uspect these issues are
issues Crosswire needs to give more thought to internally so that module
developers (volunteers, newcomers etc) are not expected to either provide
the solution or get caught in the crossfire when a can-o-worms gets opened.
~A
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, jhphx wrote:
t STEP has for checking is that it can be used to serve the
> WEB or be a desktop application. In the one case it cares; in the other, it
> doesn't. So far we have left it to the user of the application to do the
> right thing.
>
> In Him,
> DM
>
> On Jan 7, 2013, at 12:31
Sorry, I misunderstood. I see what you're saying now.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:03 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> The wording of your request is inviting a "go pound sand" response.
>> Pleas
.
> I have no plans to add such to JSword, unless it is added to SWORD first. I
> highly doubt that it will be added to SWORD until a problem with resiliency
> creates a real need. Even then, I'm not sure that that will be used as a
> solution.
>
> In His Service,
> DM
>
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, DM Smith wrote:
No, we cannot publish the terms of licensing agreements. Think about it.
> These are confidential, privileged contracts between organizations.
>
Umm, with software Licenses, Acceptable Use Policies, Copyright
Restrictions and Copyright limitations
Is there a URL that oultines what this patch does? I agree this is going
to be very useful change, but confess - I don't yet understand what this
patch is doing .
(Also, thanks indeed Greg for your efforts)
~A
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Applied. Thanks Greg,
DM, I agree that not having thought through mirror management procedurally
(policy and best backpractice) is reason enough to hold off on such a
venture, but those problems are typically trivial to solve given effective
communication.
Since technology is subordinat to intent, what needs to be work
Peter, I've not received your email yet, but look forward to it.
Let me address your concern. I have no intention of distributing modules
exclusively licensed to Crosswire. I think I currently am, however (as I
previously said to Chris) I invent you to contact me with concerns and
request.
I lo
I think this is a fanstastic idea, the idea of progamatically being able to
detect Status of a module programatically! Very good suggestion.
On this example:
"Say, a Xiphos user gets a module distributed by CrossWire, such as the
ESV. Does the Xiphos user then need to seek permission to use the
Since this has been a controversial topic recently (and since accusations
have made the matter personal), can Crosswire please post (to the wiki) the
terms of its licensing agreements with each Copyright holder (on a module
by module basis) so that its licensing rights are known and transparent to
ted the module in the
> first place, and who if different is the person maintaining the module.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 6 Jan 2013 11:09, "Peter von Kaehne" wrote:
>
>>
>> > Von: Manfred Bergmann
>>
>> > Am 06.01.2013 um 09:50 schrieb Andrew Thu
he modules subfolder.
>
> Once you have done that you will indeed be free to host our public domain
> or otherwise freely distributable texts.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Andrew Thule" 'thules...@gmail.com');>>
>
confirm your
claims I've done something wrong, or will exonerate me. That's fair right?
~A
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> So module development IS restricted to a select and apparently secret
> group (who know who they are)? You have not quite bee
I'm currently reviewing its contents to ensure no module exclusive to
Crosswire was available. I will be putting it back up on completion of my
review.
In the meanwhile, as previously requested .. if you specifically know of
any that were missed, please say so (and don't make it seem like it was
So module development IS restricted to a select and apparently secret group
(who know who they are)? You have not quite been honest, transparent, or
forthright in this then Peter. How was I suppose to know that was the
case?; and yet you've stood my accuser knowing full well that your
accusatios
have no authority to try to
control downstream usage as this list has already clarified.
~A
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Peter, I've still received nothing from you. No modules currently
> restricted to Crosswire are available ..
>
> If I'm
our guidance sound hollow and thoroughly dishonest to me.
>
> Wrt submission of modules, the wiki describes the process well. To be
> submitted osis files are to be sent to modules@crosswire. Org.
> Sent from my HTC
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Andrew Thule"
Are there volunteers in this community with direct relationships to the
(commercial) publishing industry?
I'm asking only because it might be nice to know how commercial interests
might influence this 'open' project (apart from the obvious 'we're granting
Crosswire license to distribute text we ha
should have no complaint against me.
~A
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Chris Little wrote:
>
>>
>> I credit you for taking it down, but you haven't explained why YOU felt
>> it was YOUR place to do
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Chris Little wrote:
>
> 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.
B
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Chris Little wrote:
>
> So, Andrew, the fundamental problem here is that you seem to believe you
> are never wrong and that any disagreement is always the result of the other
> party being wrong. You believe you interpret the world correctly and that
> every other
make
> make install
>
> The normal sequence otherwise is:
> ./configure
> make
> make install
>
> So cmake is just another way of setting up the Makefiles and build process.
>
> -Ben
>
> On 01/04/2013 05:42 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>> I'm curious, why do p
Peter, please temper your judgement with mercy. Your claims here are
neither correct nor fair.
On Friday, January 4, 2013, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 16:49 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
> It is clear. Your lack of respect for what is expressed in the conf
I'm curious, why do people seem to prefer cmake to make? Is that a python
thing?
~A
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Greg Hellings
> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:27 PM, wrote:
> >
om CrossWire? Do you use
> rsync w/ --delete?
>
> -- DM
>
> On Jan 4, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I was careful not to say what you proposed. The quote you suggest
s welcomed to get an account
> and create content. Using the Talk pages is an excellent place to discuss
> what should be on the page. David, Chris and I moderate the content, after
> the fact.
>
I wouldn't mind working through some of the Beta module issues as
previously mentioned
r
all others, as long as the license requirements are fulfilled, there is
nothing preventing redistribution."
This is implied from the following dialogue:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andrew Thule thules...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Since Crosswire freely allows modules to be downloa
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Chris Little wrote:
> We've actually had specific discussions with you about our not wanting you
> to redistribute our modules, specifically because of copyrighted content
> such as this for which WE have permission. YOU are not CrossWire. Any
> reasonable person w
On Thursday, January 3, 2013, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 18:51 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
> Resistance comes about when someone with a severe case of stubbornness
> ignores being told that a particular "contribution" is not desired, not
> asked for
ort-comings so I may
repent and learn.
~A
On Thursday, January 3, 2013, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On 03/01/13 20:46, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>> If there are prohibitions against distributions of newer revisions of
>> the text, this needs to be documented somewhere; for how
If there are prohibitions against distributions of newer revisions of the
text, this needs to be documented somewhere; for how else will volunteers
know they are restricted to working with particular versions of text?
~A
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> I just thou
I just thought about this a bit more .. I suppose that's what "Version=1.5"
is for ...
Nevermind.
~A
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification DM.
> Perhaps for the sake of clarity then, the .conf file's
> "Distributio
I can see how you might conclude that.
>
> However, when we get permission for a copyrighted work, we get permission
> for that copyright. If the work is updated, there is a new copyright and we
> have to obtain permission for that.
>
> In Him,
> DM
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2013, a
This site wasn't on my radar, but I find it very useful:
http://crosswire.org/wiki/Modules_in_the_beta_repository#Commentary_Modules
Many of these (well documented) issues appear easily fixed. For example
the 'emptyvss' issues are likely simple problems to fix. It appears the
purpose of this pag
and redistribute) ISV
and any additional revisions.
~A
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Come now Peter, don't be so quick to find fault.
>
> The Crosswire repository currently contains version 1.5 of the ISV
> module. Nic's question was asking about t
s now quite enough. Please desist posting further onto our
> list. Your presence is undesired
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Andrew Thule"
> To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
> Subject: [sword-devel] ISV st
Once (if?) you obtain permission to distribute, please let the list know so
that volunteers can continue to move this effort forward. (Conversion from
a Word document may no longer be necessary).
~A
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> I guess that answers the question po
I guess that answers the question posed by Nic then ..
These efforts are apparently on hold pending permission to distribute.
~A
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> Done.
>
> I made it available here only in response to this request ..
>
> ~A
>
>
>
h less to distribute it and claim that we have permission
> to distribute it.
>
> Remove it immediately.
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
> On 1/3/2013 9:37 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
>> I believe there's an OSIS file that contains both testaments ... I can
>> forwa
I believe there's an OSIS file that contains both testaments ... I can
forward it if it helps this effort.
There are least two versification problems (I haven't bothered to address
yet)
INFO(V11N): 1Sam.11 is not in the KJV versification. Appending content to
1Sam.10.27
INFO(V11N): Rev.13 is not i
With respect to using username/password combinations in InstallMgr.conf can
it not be made such that InstallMgr.con uses an environment variable (which
can be set and unset to use password), an ssh key (such as a public key as
in key exchange based logins), or some other method such as having the
.
In 'Module Maintainer Mode' you can add repos. I don't recall whether it
came preconfigured with the Xiphos repo or not, but I have that repo there
now, along with my own repos.
~A
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012, David Haslam wrote:
> FarFLB is in the Xiphos repo.
>
> Tarjumeh-ye Tafsiri (Farsi C
Oh! .. And BibleTime under OSX is pretty sweet too! Now I have 5 different
OSX bible programs, 4 of them Sword programs (last Glo Bible).
I didn't realize BT worked under OSX.
~A
On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Greg Hellings wrote:
> http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Choosing_a_SWORD_program
>
> On
That's an awesome chart!
It's curious SwordBible (SB) is listed as running on other Unixes, but not
Linux. What's Linux lack that other Unixes contain?
~A
On Thursday, November 22, 2012, Greg Hellings wrote:
> http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Choosing_a_SWORD_program
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4
Hey Pola,
Working with OSIS is pretty straight forward, it's typical mark-up. One
suggestion I found useful in this list was to try working in USFM directly
first, then convert USFM to OSIS for osis2mod.
There are PROs and CONs (and preferences) either way. In some ways USFM is
_very_ simple ma
Thanks.
I was somewhat perplexed at how I could have missed 3 versions of the
Persian bible, but I checked using pocketsword, from an IPad. Crosswire 1
only shows 1 Persian bible (FarOPV), Crosswire 2 only shows 2 (
FarHezareNoh, FarTPV). In truth, I didn't check Crosswire 2 previously, so
thank
I recognize this request is something of a long shot given that all bibles
(and translations) were gathered up in the 1979 revolution by the
revolutionary government and destroyed, but still - I'm hoping there's
something out there ...
~A
On Sunday, November 18, 2012, Andrew Thule wrot
Does anyone know of any more recent Persian translations of the bible
than Tarjumeh-ye
Ghadeem (Persian Holy Bible). To native speakers it reads somewhat
antiquated, and I'd like to get my hands on a more recent translation. I'm
particularly interested in text which can be easily translated into
the links to both US and
Canadian Copyright law so you can check yourself)
What reasonable discussion is there when people refuse to believe the Law?
Under the law, if a work qualifies as dervative work it is legal.
~A
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012, jhphx wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:40 AM, Andr
Agreed. Moving on to a better employment perhaps? If so, congrats, and
good news for Crosswire development too!
~A
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On 13/11/12 21:08, Nic Carter wrote:
>
>> ps: for those still reading along, today is my 2nd last day of work for
>> m
CrossWire
> again soon! :) expect a release soon for everyone's favourite iOS app that
> supports the SWORD format ;)
>
>
> On 14/11/2012, at 5:40, Andrew Thule wrote:
>
> With the possible exception of calling people trolls, I agree, this is how
> we are to conduct
With the possible exception of calling people trolls, I agree, this is how
we are to conduct ourselves in public. Even Christian folks, sometimes
disagree. Reasoning things out, using civility, logic, evidence, tolerance
for difference of opinion, are all hallmarks of responsible people working
thr
Instructions for those who compile from source:
-From base dir of source (/usr/local/src/sword in my case), change to
subdirectory utilities
Find section:
noinst_PROGRAMS = cipherraw$(EXEEXT) lexdump$(EXEEXT) \
stepdump$(EXEEXT) step2vpl$(EXEEXT) gbfidx$(EXEEXT) \
modwrite$(EXEEXT)
I'd be happy to chip in. I read ESV last year as my daily read, and I've
read KJV the same way. (This year I'm on LEB).
I'll even offer to read 'difficult' books such as Isaiah, and Jeremiah
(though if you can through in something nice like Hebrews - I'd very much
appreciate it).
~A
On Mon, No
It appears to commented out by default in the Makefile (that comes via
SVN). It, with a few other goodies, is easily compiled by making a minor
change to the Makefile.
The code for emptyvss indeed appears to be available with both SVN and the
tar ball versions. That said, I've not played with an
Peter
Thanks, but the purpose of sharing this module was to improve it, not to
contribute to Crosswire.
With respect to abiding by your values - I believe I do. I live to honour
Christ in all that I do. I abide by the law, and I seek His Glory. If
these are the values that you are referencing,
Jerry, what the Law actually says trumps what the copyright office says.
I quoted the law itself which outlines restrictions on Copyright for fair
use. I also quoted the Law which justifies 'derivative works' even where
Copyright applies.
If copyright doesn't apply to certain types of work - you
Chris, thank you for taking time to lay out your position. (Comments
inline)
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Chris Little wrote:
>
> The problem here is that you are employing CrossWire's mailing list to
> publicize the dissemination of a copyright-violating work. You are breaking
> the law and
nvert from USFM to OSIS is likely pretty common.
~A
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:
> .. and Bibleedit does a reasonably good job of converting USFM to OSIS as
> well ..
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
>>
>> &
Oh! If you have the chance - go see them! Highly recommended!
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:13 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> For those in the Cincinnati area, the Cincinnati Museum will have the Dead
> Sea Scrolls on display starting November 15 with a premiere.
>
> http://www.cincymuseum.org/dead-sea-scr
.. and Bibleedit does a reasonably good job of converting USFM to OSIS as
well ..
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>
> > Von: Chris Burrell
>
> > Thanks for all the info. On the last point, I did mean read directly from
> > USFM. I don't know the format well-enough, but
f those that negotiate rights for
> modules and who maintain many modules in the CrossWire repository. You have
> heard from them in this thread.
>
> Regarding, the DSS it has been recommended to open lines of communication
> with the academics whose effort went into the transl
e it legally.
> Since we don't interrogate people to see if they have fair use rights,
> there is no possible way that we could publish copyrighted material without
> consent from the copyright owner. It's that simple.
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 11/08/2012 11:26 AM, Andrew
If you know 'awk' it's not difficult at all Chris. You can use 'awk'
regular expressions to replace USFM tags with OSIS ones.
~A
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Chris Burrell wrote:
> Thanks for all the info. On the last point, I did mean read directly from
> USFM. I don't know the format we
e obtained, or a link
> to the publisher's general terms or you stop distributing and talking about
> ripping off these translations.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Andrew Thule"
> To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum
in Europe.
~A
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 22:56 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
> > Clearly I have no commercial interest in offering this module to the list
> > for QA. Clearly the translators who have offered their work to
lly so.
>
> I am not going to bore you or the list with definitions.
>
> Peter
>
> Original-Nachricht ----
> > Datum: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:21:13 -0500
> > Von: Andrew Thule
> > An: "SWORD Developers\' Collaboration Forum"
> > Betre
lic Domain or provide us evidence that you have
> secured distribution rights. If you can't do those things, then the
> CrossWire community doesn't want to play host or distributor to either
> those texts or your announcement of their availability.
>
> --Greg
>
>
> O
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
