Well, glad to hear it, perhaps I stand corrected in everything negative I said... :-P That would be nice! ;o)
Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Troy A. Griffitts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: [sword-devel] Copyright info > I'll let Jonathan reply more authoritatively, but in my experience, > copyright holders and Bible Societies don't mistrust us or see us in any > poor light. We've never had a complaint about locked modules. We > actually don't even distribute locked modules on our public site any > longer, but even when we did, we didn't have any complaints. My > experience is that the organizations that have truely taken the time to > hear our requests, and have responded unfavorable, have mostly expressed > that they have commitments to other projects. I think a commited effort > to research and contact the decision-making person at more organizations > is the needed ingredient. Jonathan has taken on this role and has made > a great initial effort. > > > David Burry wrote: > > I don't think the main issue is open vs closed source (well to some it may > > be) but I think the main issue for most copyright holders that distrust > > sword is.... what the heck are the locked modules FOR if they're not legal? > > If they're not legal, dump them until permission is granted so that they ARE > > legal! > > > > Even locked modules are still texts being sucked into a new format and > > distributed without the copyright holder's permission. And certain "key" > > people have the keys (no pun intended), and do share them amongst themselves > > for "testing" purposes... _this_ is probably the main reason why some > > copyright holders distrust sword... in my opinion one way to gain their > > trust is to never even accept a locked module until you have permission to > > distribute it locked. Some societies will always be untrusting and we can't > > help that, but that at least may help this issue. > > > > Also if someone invents a way to legally distribute the keys and pay > > royalties, that would be another way that would gain a lot of trust. But so > > far we haven't needed this because we can get the keys ourselves for > > "testing" purposes and then we don't need to invent such a process because > > we have the keys and we the developers are happy. This is a very selfish > > attitude as well as makes us seem untrustworthy. Darn, nobody's gonna send > > me a key now... ;o) > > > > Ok, I'm off my soap box, and ducking all the stuff you're gonna throw at > > me... I don't mean to be disrespectful of anyone, just trying to think about > > it from a copyright holder's perspective. They simply see us as a bunch of > > scary hackers that are into distributing texts illegally, some people on > > this list really are (most of us aren't), and the way this locked module > > thing is being handled even gives those copyright holders grounds for > > thinking some more of us are who aren't. > > > > Copyright holders want accountability, control, some legal entity to hold > > responsible, and/or money, plain and simple, we're giving them very little > > to none of these so far. If a copyright holder said "give me a list of all > > individuals who have downloaded and unlocked x module" could we answer? > > Nope. They want this kind of control over their works, at least some sort > > of registration process so we can give an accurate count even if we don't > > share personal details, along with the ability to pay a royalty and return > > it to the copyright holder based on head count. > > > > Many people on this list do find this royalty thing disgusting, and well, > > that's it... therefore they distrust us too... plain and simple. > > > > Dave > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Glenn Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 9:29 PM > > Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Is sword going non-gpl or proprietory? > > > > > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>Thanks for clearing that up for me. Well making it a little clearer > > > > anyway. > > > >>>Well, first, there are no plans to license as anything other than GPL. > >>>Second, there has never been any suggestion that we go to any license > >> > > that > > > >>>is not open-source except by those who see this as a way of convincing > >>>copyright holders that Sword is secure. > >> > >>You mention that there are some that suggest closed source as a means of > >>getting the copyright holders on board. Has this line been suggested by > > > > some > > > >>of the bible societies or by members of sword who have speculated that the > >>attitude of bible societies might change "if ...... " ? > >> > >>If access to the source code is guaranteed then I guess this is a > > > > non-issue. > > > >>I would hate to see this project hijacked by commercial interests. > >> > >>What does surprise me is the "apparent" attitude of the bible societies > >>towards this project. At least from the (very) short time I have been > >>following the issues surrounding this. It seems that certain copyright > >>modules are locked but more to the point that there is no way to purchase > > > > the > > > >>keys for these locked modules?? That there is this great distrust between > >>the bible societies and sword. To put it bluntly I am astonished that the > >>bible societies want to put a stumbling block towards the spreading of the > >>gospel. Does anyone know how long active lobbying of the bible societies > > > > has > > > >>been happening? And why it seems that so few of them have been willing to > >>alter thier positiion??? > >> > >>And perhaps as a corollary to the above issue, how will I as a developer > > > > get > > > >>access to the locked modules. Also will any translation I contribute to > >>sword, such as CLV, simply disappear into a void? > >> > >>Glenn Reed. > >> > >>On Monday 09 September 2002 04:13 pm, you wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Glenn Reed wrote: > >>> > >>>>I read this from the mailing list. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>First it is GPL--this is > >>>>>>the last GPL component in the library. If it were replaced with > >>>>>>something else, we could license Sword under non-GPL licenses to > >>>>>>other entities (e.g. Bible societies that don't want to deal with > >>>>>>GPL's restrictions) or put it out publicly under a license that we > >>>>>>write that better meets our needs than the GPL. > >>>>> > >>>>My feeling is that the great advantage of sword is that it is GPL. If > >>> > > it > > > >>>>ever went closed source (perhaps due to pressure from certain bible > >>>>societies??) I would be forced to pursue other options :( > >>>> > >>> > >><snip> > >> > >>>Just to re-iterate, we're not going closed source. > >>> > >>>--Chris > >> > >
