Peter, what offered is to participate in civil discussion, and I will honour that offer, as I hope you will too.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Peter Von Kaehne <[email protected]> wrote: > > You are being told not to discuss your rejected modules, offering test > modules or distribute modules. As every single technical enquiry sent by > you was coupled with just this, you are asked to refrain from that too. > > > *Gesendet:* Montag, 10. September 2018 um 14:05 Uhr > *Von:* "Andrew T." <[email protected]> > *An:* "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum" <[email protected]> > *Betreff:* Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list > All of this was very helpful and I think it does expose the raw point > here. I haven’t been afforded the opportunity to present the case for DSS > yet - you won’t allow me to participate in it. But even if that’s the case > that’s not what I react to. > > When I ask other questions, legitimate questions, about module > construction, error questions for example, I get hostilility. This > community should not have its lepers! Please let’s agree to let that stop. > I understand Michael’s point, that you are trying to protect this > community. You should be lauded for it; but there’s a right way and a > wrong way. Telling members to ‘move on’ is not in the same spirit as > laying out detailed posts about community practice and expectation. > > With respect to DSS publication, Ill start a separate thread to keep > threads consistent. Please, all be civil and patient on that thread. > > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:54 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> 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 >> >> 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. >> >> 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..... >> >> >> >> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird >> autocorrects. >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list >> From: [email protected] >> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum >> CC: >> >> >> >> Good question, much is ad hoc but in the end this is how things usually >> run: >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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?" >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> " >> >> 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" >> >> 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... >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird >> autocorrects. >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Copyright, modules, mailing list >> From: "Andrew T." >> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum >> CC: >> >> >> >> This is very helpful Peter. Thank you. >> >> However, I’d like to ask about enforcement. >> Does a module actually need to be submitted to the project to be judged? >> Or is it sufficient to judge modules the project has never seen by simply >> judging the reputation of the person working on them? >> >> What is the process for initiating this scrutiny? >> I ask only because you seem able to judge modules you’ve never seen, >> while casting doubt upon them. >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:28 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Just as a reminder. >>> >>> CrossWise does respect copyrights and takes in general a very cautious >>> view in these matters. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird >>> autocorrects. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird >>> autocorrects. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
