Andrew, we've already established that you just plainly don't understand
copyright. You think it simply doesn't apply to you if you don't feel
like having it apply to you. That's why you are still hosting illegally
produced copies of translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We established
this a while back.
I believe we have exactly zero exclusive licenses to distribute content.
If we had an exclusive license for a translation, that would indicate
that no one else could have a license to distribute that translation.
(It's common to limit exclusivity to a particular domain, so many
translations will have exclusive print publishing licenses but
non-exclusive electronic publishing licenses so that material can appear
in various electronic formats.)
We don't pretend that we have exclusive control over any content (except
arguably that content which we have produced ourselves). That control
obviously resides with the copyright holder. That is the essence of
copyright.
So, when we direct you to not redistribute content on your server, it's
because you're breaking the law by doing so. The distribution rights
that we negotiate are rights that have been granted to CrossWire and do
not transfer to others unless the copyright holder explicitly permits it.
--Chris
On 1/6/2013 7:21 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
Yes, exactly Chris.
Both Chris and Peter have publicly accused me of breaking the law (thus
tarnishing my reputation, and sullied my efforts to contribute). This
implies I've breeched the terms of Crosswire's licensing agreement with
the ISV foundation as the Copyright owner. What exactly is the
agreement Crosswire's reached with the ISV Foundation, and what are its
terms (since I've apparently broken them)? Is Crosswire's legal right
to distribute Copyright text on behalf of the ISV foundation even
covered by a license agreement? Does this agreement's terms extend to
module developers who volunteer to assist, or not? If no such Licensing
Agreement exists between the Copyright owner and Crosswire, I am not
only innocent of the charges Peter and Chris have accused me of that I
have broken some law, I have been falsely accused (and my reputation
sullied wrongfully), but those levelling accusations against me are
hypocrites for accusing me of these things, while themselves making
false claims.
Furthermore, if Crosswire itself doesn't have actual licensing
agreements with the Copyright owners proving it possesses distribution
rights, it doesn't in fact have legal right to distribute texts despite
the licensing claim contained in the .conf files. In this case it has
no right to castigate me for believing such a permissions exists
protecting Crosswire developers (and this is also plain hypocrisy). This
same logic applies to all of the modules Crosswire claims exclusive
rights to. For each module this claim is made, licensing terms much
exist or Crosswire is making false claims and arbitrarily using these
false rights as a lever against module developers it finds less favourable.
Thought Peter has not yet explicitly specified module's I've
'distributed' that belong to Crosswire, which of these actually have
these rights granted through a licensing agreement. Does Crosswire in
fact have exclusive right to distribute these texts (and deny others
that right)? Questions like these are addressed by making public the
licensing agreements (perhaps in the wiki). I can't see any reason
making such licensing agreements public is a bad idea. It would only be
a bad idea if Crosswire doesn't in fact have such agreements in place.
As I said previously, I can see lots of benefits (including exonerating
my reputation from false claims of illegality, and character
assassination). If Crosswire is not willing to make pubic the
agreements under which it operates, terms it claims grant it exclusive
control over distribution of certain copyright texts it IS being
secretive and arbitrary (Manfred).
~A
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Chris Burrell <ch...@burrell.me.uk
<mailto:ch...@burrell.me.uk>> wrote:
I think what Andrew meant by "secretive" is that there doesn't seem
to be an obvious documented place where there is a link between who
owns the relationship with the copyright holder, who generated 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" <ref...@gmx.net
<mailto:ref...@gmx.net>> wrote:
> Von: Manfred Bergmann <manfred.bergm...@me.com
<mailto:manfred.bergm...@me.com>>
> Am 06.01.2013 um 09:50 schrieb Andrew Thule
<thules...@gmail.com <mailto:thules...@gmail.com>>:
>
> > The site makes it seem like anyone can contribute to
module creation,
> modification.
> >
>
> Anyone can contribute to module creation.
Thanks, Manfred. Indeed, anyone can. We have hundreds of modules
produced by dozens of contributors.
What you can not do is publish on your own server what is
licensed to CrossWire.
What we do not want is that people interfere in existing
relationships around existing copyrighted modules. Certainly not
by breaching copyright and publishing such modules on their own
server.
Hardly secretive cabale...
Peter
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
<mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org>
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
<mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org>
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
