I think the vision of having the module source provider 'contribute' the module at a site (such as NET coming from crossway) is also a good one. That at least means should a single module source be 'shutdown', others are still available, (even if not containing the module a users trying to get). For InstallMgr to support something like this would be good.
(I spend much time in a heavily mined landlocked South-East Asian Islamic country where becoming a Christian was punishable by death. Crosswire was not accessible - and it was a real impediment How does InstallMgr work when I go to the main Crosswire site and download a module like KJV (version 2.3) and then update source from say Crosswire Beta where it sees KJV (version 2.4) and suggests an update (or is this a Xiphos thing)? That's very nice 'feature' where it sees the module the same though the source may be different (I presume by seeing the upgrade to "Version=" in the .conf file). Should an install module software support multiple sites, it would be very nice to continue recognizing modules as the same regardless of their source. ~A On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Troy A. Griffitts <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey guys. Thanks for everyone speaking on this thread. Andrew, I do > appreciate your offer, I sympathize with your single point of failure and > widest distribution possible points; however, I tend to agree with the > replies given on this thread. The primary benefit I see for a mirror would > be faster downloads. I'm not sure we have an issue currently. > > Technically: > > Changing InstallMgr to 'merge' modules from multiple repositories would be > simple to do. This is already done for the concept of global modules > typically located someplace like /usr/share/sword/ and personal modules > located at ~/.sword/. The method to call is: > > /** > * Adds books from a new path to the library > * @param path the path in which to search for books > * @param multiMod whether or not to keep multiple copies of the > same book if found in different paths > * default - false, uses last found version of the book > */ > virtual void SWMgr::augmentModules(const char *path, bool multiMod = > false); > > > This would allow a frontend to give a unified list of modules from all > repositories and would show the latest version available on any repo. I > prefer having the repositories separate for the user because it gives a > certain flavor/theme/endorsement to the modules. e.g., NET work comes > directly from bible.org. Hopefully soon, the ESV will come directly from > Crossway, and my hope is that this will become a trend. The Xiphos repo > hosts brave modules which give newer features, but which might not yet be > fully tested on all platforms (I hope this is a fair characterization). > > The mirror concept is different from this identity separation, I realize, > but technically, the merging of modules from various mirrors could use the > same facility. We would need to tweak the code slightly to add an entry in > the memory stamp of the loaded .conf to include all the mirrors which > provide the module, so the frontend could offer a choice to the user and > then get back to the correct repo to actually request the download, but it > would be a simple addition and one a frontend could already do easily if > they wanted to offer such. > > Also, technical comment to another item on this thread: > We do support multiple copies of the same modules, as seen by the final > parameter of the above method. The default is false (don't keep multiple > copies), but this functionality was requested by the Bibletime team a number > of years ago, and I believe they turn it on by default (or at least they > used to). I only saw the benefit for developers, as Karl and David > mentioned, so I left the default false. > > In general, please don't think distribution isn't one of our highest > priorities. My entire push to keep the definition of a 'module repository' > as simple as any installed set of SWORD modules, is fuelled directly from > that desire-- to technically enable anyone who installs a set a modules, to > then become a distributor of those modules simply by making their storage > location available to others. If I thought sanctioned mirrors would > legitimately increase Bible distribution, I would endorse the move. > > Hope this helps, > > Troy > > > > > > > On 07/29/2012 05:07 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Andrew Thule <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Peter von Kaehne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I really don't see your point about this. >>>> >>>> To second that - there is essentially no point. >>> >>> Many publicly available repositories replicate themselves. (Take >>> Sourceforge for example). There are many reason why they do this. >>> Lower latency in downloads for example, fewer router hops between >>> client and source download, load balance downloads by distributing >>> them across multiple sites, reduce available from single point of >>> failure, and yes even security. There are places in the world that >>> filter or monitor sites because of the word 'cross'. The point should >>> be obious, suggesting Crosswire consider replicating itself (the site) >>> and it's module repository has benefits such as no single point of >>> failure etc - that is unless the chief concern is not text >>> distribution. >> >> Many do. We have opted not to. The extra technical requirements to >> setup mirroring and ensure it stays synced to the master are not worth >> the increased benefits to us at this time. If it becomes beneficial in >> the future then it will be considered. But at this point the costs >> outweigh the benefits, in the group's collective mind. >> >>>> People who access us from countries which control their internet and >>>> want to block the Bible, need to be cautious and come through proxies, >>>> tor or whatever or obtain stuff via CDs, USB sticks etc. >>> >>> This might be your preference, but should Crosswire really control >>> it's own module distribution once it makes them available? >> >> Uhh... yes? CrossWire should definitely control its modules. I'm not >> certain what you're getting at here. CrossWire will license any >> original works it creates with a very permissive license - GPLv2 for >> most software or similarly themed licenses for texts. Those, anyone is >> free to use. When Wycliffe or someone else grants us permission to >> create a module from one of their texts we negotiate the most >> permissive license they are willing to allow. We have no control over >> those modules, so there is nothing we can do besides follow the >> licenses we were able to negotiate and encourage others to follow them >> as well. >> >>>> Providing secondary download sources in the hope that they will not be >>>> observed while our main ones are - this is silly and actually more >>>> dangerous than going the long way via e.g. tor >>> >>> Well such a scenario is only one possible benefit. Tor nodes may also >>> be filtered (have you ever tried to look at a books.google.com book >>> through the Tor network for example?) The benefit of Tor networks is >>> not that that they get around domain-name restrictions, but that they >>> get around tracing relationships between client and server. Likewise, >>> if someone wanted to monitor access to sword modules (technically) >>> they would need look at but a single site. But again, this is somewhat >>> of a tangent. >>> >>>> The offer is kind, is appreciated, but is essentially one which makes no >>>> sense to us, increases our opportunity costs and therefore should be >>>> declined. >>> >>> No worries. The goal wasn't to necessarily host a crosswise mirror >>> (though that was the offer) but to to ask Crosswire's philosophy on >>> module distribution. I wondered about how to provide maximum >>> dissemination to Sword modules in my possession not in the main repo, >>> some of which have not had their distribution rights negotiated. I'd >>> like to balance licensing restrictions against broad availability. >> >> If you are the copyright holder, you are welcome to place any modules >> you create under a repository. You'd even be welcomed to place that >> repository in the master list so that applications can automatically >> discover it and offer the source to their users. The Xiphos repository >> essentially fits this description. It is not officially a part of >> CrossWire, but it is listed in the autodiscover repository list and is >> maintained by one of the people in this thread to host modules that he >> personally wanted to see hosted but which CrossWire didn't or wouldn't >> host. >> >> If you are not the copyright holder then you have to obey the >> copyright of the source text. For modules like the NIV or the NRSV, >> which we'd like to distribute, we have been unable to come to terms >> with their copyright holders. So we can't distribute those and, >> legally, you couldn't either. The same goes for non-Bible matieral. If >> you want to post copyrighted modules in your personal repository >> >>> Having them at a single site neither distributes risk, and represents >>> a single point of failure. Similarly, if the applications of rights >>> such as "Copyrighted; Permission to distribute granted to CrossWire" >>> implies that module redistribution becomes restricted to one site only >>> - that likely shouldn't be the license attached to the module. (On the >>> other hand if Crosswire asserted it's right to text re-distribution >>> though through a sanctioned mirror program - I'd have less issue with >>> it). >> >> CrossWire can distribute its sources out across mirrors and multiple >> sites if it wants to. If we wanted to host the modules off of S3, we >> could do that. If we wanted to acquire a second site hosted in London >> to duplicate our data as a failover location, we could do that. So >> long as the sites are CrossWire, there is no limitation to CrossWire >> distributing the modules from only its one server located in Arizona. >> However, we just don't see any need (and yes, we understand the >> benefits and drawbacks) for distributed mirrors at this time. Maybe >> that will change in the future, maybe not. Maybe Troy will jump in at >> this point in the coversation and say, "You know what, I think we >> should." >> >> But those modules which are licensed for CrossWire's distribution >> only, we are no the ones to place that restriction. The copyright >> holders have done so. We graciously thank them for being so generous >> with their text and attempt jealously to guard the copyright according >> to the owner's wishes. We would like that restriction lifted, because >> we do encourage people to download modules that are helpful to them >> onto CD or USB stick and hand them to friends and family and >> co-workers. That could very much be a violation of such a license, if >> those people are not part of CrossWire. Thus, we try to avoid that >> license if possible, but if that is the only terms under which a >> content owner will license their text, we have to abide by that. >> >> --Greg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] >> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel >> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
