Hello everyone, As was mentioned in last week's roundup blog post<http://openscriptures.org/blog/2009/06/open-scriptures-roundup-june-2...>, over the past few months I have been in dialog with the German Bible Society; we've been working through our respective positions and perspectives on the issue of licensing for open source development. Our dialog has been quite edifying, and I want to express my gratitude to Dr. Bertram Salzmann for his continued patience, thoughtfulness, and understanding.
Bertram has put forth a proposal which has been approved by the GBS scholarly editions board. I think that his proposal is quite fair and accommodating, that it serves the interests of both GBS and open source developers, and more importantly, serves the community at large by making God's word more widely available in ways never before possible. Please take a look (below) and respond with any _constructive_ comments you have.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salzmann, Dr. Bertram Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM Subject: RE: GNT and OpenScriptures.org To: Weston Ruter
Cc: "Schubert, Beate"
Dear Weston,
Thank you again for your well thought out reply. You are right: The current status of our scholarly Bible portal, that only supports German as interface language, is not satisfying. Localization into English is on my agenda and I hope to be able to complete it this summer. But this was not the main point of your reply, as I understood it.
I am glad to hear that you are interested in option #1 from my last email: “Developers develop their applications on the Greek New Testament in co-ordination with the German Bible Society. If they have powerful application to offer, we will consider publishing them.” In more detail, this could mean:
1. The German Bible Society becomes the official partner of a developer’s community that develops free electronic tools for biblical studies, online and offline. I would suggest you to become the head of this developers community. 2. Every member of the community has to register with real name and address. 3. The German Bible Society provides the datasets of the Greek New Testament Bible text and of other Bible versions that are under copyright by GBS to the developer’s community for use in their development work. 4. Every developer signs an agreement that he/she will not forward the dataset(s) to third parties, will not alter the text in the datasets, will not publish the text(s) in print, offline or online without written permission of the German Bible Society. 5. The German Bible Society will run a website for publication of tools, online and for download, developed by members of the developer’s community. This website will be a special website for the results of the community work. I would suggest you to become the chief editor of this website. 6. The Bible versions under copyright by GBS will be available together with the mentioned tools from this website for online use free of charge. 7. The German Bible Society maintains the right to charge users of the website for access to additional content and for download of content that is under copyright by GBS. 8. Tools developed by members of the community that include the Biblical texts provided by GBS in part or as a whole must not be published or distributed elsewhere without written permission of the German Bible Society. 9. No payments are made between the German Bible Society and the developer’s community.
Dear Weston,
This is the outline of my concept. I am sure that many more aspects have to be discussed and decided, but this is just to give you an idea on how a collaboration between you and us could work. This takes into account the principles that you mentioned in your last email: “We open source developers are not seeking to profit off of your data; on the contrary, we are seeking to donate our time and skills to develop free scriptural applications that utilize the available data. We both have assets. Your asset is your data and scholarship, and our asset is our technical skills and resources.” I am sure that a concept as described above could use your resources as well as ours and serve your needs as well as ours.
First of all, this is great news! To hear that _constructive_ dialogue has
been occurring is a great testimony to our Lord. Further, I think this is a
a great example of why Open Scriptures exists, simply communicating is
making steady progress in the field of Biblical Studies.
Second, I agree that the proposal is fair and accommodating. Dr. Salzmann's
nine expansions of how this relationship could look seem quite appropriate.
He suggests a couple times that Weston be the lead of the developer's
community. Though I agree in practice, I think that Open Scriptures proper
should be the developer community, with Weston as the immediate head of Open
Scriptures. This might require the eventual development of Open Scriptures
into an official non-profit organization, which we have previously
discussed<http://groups.google.com/group/open-scriptures/browse_thread/thread/c...>.
If Open Scriptures were an official organization with a head and a board
then this sort of arrangement could easily become a long-term solution
between content providers and the developer community. Also, this seems to
be the natural outworking of Weston's earlier suggestion that Open
Scriptures become an "intermediary between application developers and
content owners<http://groups.google.com/group/open-scriptures/browse_thread/thread/8...>
."
Lastly, the closing remarks are right on point, both communities have
valuable resources which become even more valuable when paired together. My
one concern is simply that Open Scriptures remain true to itself as an *open
* community. I do not have any problem with providing access to copyrighted
GBS material but I want to voice my opinion that all code and developer
collaboration remain open so far as it depends on us.
Thanks a lot Weston, Dr. Salzmann and GBS!
Jesse Griffin
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> As was mentioned in last week's roundup blog post<http://openscriptures.org/blog/2009/06/open-scriptures-roundup-june-2...>,
> over the past few months I have been in dialog with the German Bible
> Society; we've been working through our respective positions and
> perspectives on the issue of licensing for open source development. Our
> dialog has been quite edifying, and I want to express my gratitude to Dr.
> Bertram Salzmann for his continued patience, thoughtfulness, and
> understanding.
> Bertram has put forth a proposal which has been approved by the GBS
> scholarly editions board. I think that his proposal is quite fair and
> accommodating, that it serves the interests of both GBS and open source
> developers, and more importantly, serves the community at large by making
> God's word more widely available in ways never before possible. Please take
> a look (below) and respond with any _constructive_ comments you have.
> Weston
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Salzmann, Dr. Bertram
> Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM
> Subject: RE: GNT and OpenScriptures.org
> To: Weston Ruter
> Cc: "Schubert, Beate"
> Dear Weston,
> Thank you again for your well thought out reply. You are right: The current
> status of our scholarly Bible portal, that only supports German as interface
> language, is not satisfying. Localization into English is on my agenda and I
> hope to be able to complete it this summer. But this was not the main point
> of your reply, as I understood it.
> I am glad to hear that you are interested in option #1 from my last email:
> “Developers develop their applications on the Greek New Testament in
> co-ordination with the German Bible Society. If they have powerful
> application to offer, we will consider publishing them.” In more detail,
> this could mean:
> 1. The German Bible Society becomes the official partner of a
> developer’s community that develops free electronic tools for biblical
> studies, online and offline. I would suggest you to become the head of this
> developers community.
> 2. Every member of the community has to register with real name and
> address.
> 3. The German Bible Society provides the datasets of the Greek New
> Testament Bible text and of other Bible versions that are under copyright by
> GBS to the developer’s community for use in their development work.
> 4. Every developer signs an agreement that he/she will not forward the
> dataset(s) to third parties, will not alter the text in the datasets, will
> not publish the text(s) in print, offline or online without written
> permission of the German Bible Society.
> 5. The German Bible Society will run a website for publication of
> tools, online and for download, developed by members of the developer’s
> community. This website will be a special website for the results of the
> community work. I would suggest you to become the chief editor of this
> website.
> 6. The Bible versions under copyright by GBS will be available together
> with the mentioned tools from this website for online use free of charge.
> 7. The German Bible Society maintains the right to charge users of the
> website for access to additional content and for download of content that is
> under copyright by GBS.
> 8. Tools developed by members of the community that include the
> Biblical texts provided by GBS in part or as a whole must not be published
> or distributed elsewhere without written permission of the German Bible
> Society.
> 9. No payments are made between the German Bible Society and the
> developer’s community.
> Dear Weston,
> This is the outline of my concept. I am sure that many more aspects have to
> be discussed and decided, but this is just to give you an idea on how a
> collaboration between you and us could work. This takes into account the
> principles that you mentioned in your last email: “We open source developers
> are not seeking to profit off of your data; on the contrary, we are seeking
> to donate our time and skills to develop free scriptural applications that
> utilize the available data. We both have assets. Your asset is your data and
> scholarship, and our asset is our technical skills and resources.” I am sure
> that a concept as described above could use your resources as well as ours
> and serve your needs as well as ours.
As was mentioned in last week's roundup
blog post, over the past few months I have been in dialog with the
German Bible Society; we've been working through our respective
positions and perspectives on the issue of licensing for open source
development. Our dialog has been quite edifying, and I want to express
my gratitude to Dr. Bertram Salzmann for his continued patience,
thoughtfulness, and understanding.
Bertram has put forth a proposal which has been approved by the GBS
scholarly editions board. I think that his proposal is quite fair and
accommodating, that it serves the interests of both GBS and open source
developers, and more importantly, serves the community at large by
making God's word more widely available in ways never before possible.
Please take a look (below) and respond with any _constructive_ comments
you have.
Thank you again for your well thought out reply. You are right: The
current status of our scholarly Bible portal, that only supports German
as interface language, is not satisfying. Localization into English is
on my agenda and I hope to be able to complete it this summer. But this
was not the main point of your reply, as I understood it.
I am glad to hear that you are interested in option #1 from my last
email: “Developers develop their applications on the Greek New
Testament in co-ordination with the German Bible Society. If they have
powerful application to offer, we will consider publishing them.” In
more detail, this could mean:
The German Bible Society becomes the official partner of a
developer’s community that develops free electronic tools for biblical
studies, online and offline. I would suggest you to become the head of
this developers community.
Every member of the community has to register with real name
and address.
The German Bible Society provides the datasets of the Greek New
Testament Bible text and of other Bible versions that are under
copyright by GBS to the developer’s community for use in their
development work.
Would this include the BHS?
This text was removed from CCAT. Similarly, the Westminster Hebrew
Morphology is being withheld from public distribution, while their
legal department investigates their rights to distribute the work.
Could a clear decision be issued in this case, or their text included
in the project?
Every developer signs an agreement that he/she will not forward
the dataset(s) to third parties, will not alter the text in the
datasets, will not publish the text(s) in print, offline or online
without written permission of the German Bible Society.
Fair.
The German
Bible Society will run a website for publication of
tools, online and for download, developed by members of the developer’s
community. This website will be a special website for the results of
the community work. I would suggest you to become the chief editor of
this website.
The Bible versions under copyright by GBS will be available
together with the mentioned tools from this website for online use free
of charge.
The German Bible Society maintains the right to charge users of
the website for access to additional content and for download of
content that is under copyright by GBS.
Tools developed by members of the community that include the
Biblical texts provided by GBS in part or as a whole must not be
published or distributed elsewhere without written permission of the
German Bible Society.
Does this mean that the tools could be distributed elsewhere, as long
as they don't include the GBS texts? I'm thinking of tools that have a
wider application than just these specific texts.
No payments are made between the German Bible Society and the
developer’s community.
Dear Weston,
This is the outline of my concept. I am sure that many more aspects
have to be discussed and decided, but this is just to give you an idea
on how a collaboration between you and us could work. This takes into
account the principles that you mentioned in your last email: “We open
source developers are not seeking to profit off of y
our data; on the
contrary, we are seeking to donate our time and skills to develop free
scriptural applications that utilize the available data. We both have
assets. Your asset is your data and scholarship, and our asset is our
technical skills and resources.” I am sure that a concept as described
above could use your resources as well as ours and serve your needs as
well as ours.
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Salzmann, Dr. Bertram > Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM > Subject: RE: GNT and OpenScriptures.org > To: Weston Ruter > Cc: "Schubert, Beate" > The Bible versions under copyright by GBS will be available together with > the mentioned tools from this website for online use free of charge.
Will it be public, or require free registration? What sort of information would be required for registration in that case?
> Tools developed by members of the community that include the Biblical texts > provided by GBS in part or as a whole must not be published or distributed > elsewhere without written permission of the German Bible Society.
These last points effectively preclude any form of Open Source license. I would recommend a strict separation between OpenScriptures and the GBS collaboration project. The GBS site should only provide database modules which can be used with any software implementing a specification (which could be published by OpenScriptures, or perhaps we could use an existing format like Sword).
OpenScriptures should continue to be developed apart from GBS. At the same time, Weston or whomever could work with GBS to get their data into our models (or adjust our models to work with their data). That way the GBS-collaboration site could use the GPLd OpenScriptures code (e.g. the comparator) with their own data, thereby achieving their goal of having gratis online access to their data with very little expenditure of their own. Since they earn their money from data, they should have no problem using GPL code to serve it up. As Bruce Perens would say, in this case it is "non-differentiating software." Also, this strict separation will protect OpenScriptures as an independent, open source project, which could not be the case if it were exclusively attached to GBS.
As for offline use and downloads, I think some of the other projects, especially Sword, may be interested in this collaboration. Perhaps we should invite some of their developers to participate, since my reading of the above 9 principles suggests that a Sword module would be permissible.
-- Nathan Smith nat...@nathansmith.me 503.313.1456
> These last points effectively preclude any form of Open Source > license. I would recommend a strict separation between OpenScriptures > and the GBS collaboration project.
I am new to Open Scriptures, so forgive me if this is a question which
has been discussed before. In reading through Dr. Salzmann's nine
points, I don't see any mention of the apparatuses which are connected
to the UBS text or the NA27 text. Were you able to discuss these with
Dr. Salzmann at any point? It would be very useful to have these
included in the agreement as well.
Thank you,
Michael H. Burer
Dallas Theological Seminary
On Jun 30, 11:38 am, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> As was mentioned in last week's roundup blog
> post<http://openscriptures.org/blog/2009/06/open-scriptures-roundup-june-2...>,
> over the past few months I have been in dialog with the German Bible
> Society; we've been working through our respective positions and
> perspectives on the issue of licensing for open source development. Our
> dialog has been quite edifying, and I want to express my gratitude to Dr.
> Bertram Salzmann for his continued patience, thoughtfulness, and
> understanding.
> Bertram has put forth a proposal which has been approved by the GBS
> scholarly editions board. I think that his proposal is quite fair and
> accommodating, that it serves the interests of both GBS and open source
> developers, and more importantly, serves the community at large by making
> God's word more widely available in ways never before possible. Please take
> a look (below) and respond with any _constructive_ comments you have.
> Weston
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Salzmann, Dr. Bertram
> Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:03 AM
> Subject: RE: GNT and OpenScriptures.org
> To: Weston Ruter
> Cc: "Schubert, Beate"
> Dear Weston,
> Thank you again for your well thought out reply. You are right: The current
> status of our scholarly Bible portal, that only supports German as interface
> language, is not satisfying. Localization into English is on my agenda and I
> hope to be able to complete it this summer. But this was not the main point
> of your reply, as I understood it.
> I am glad to hear that you are interested in option #1 from my last email:
> “Developers develop their applications on the Greek New Testament in
> co-ordination with the German Bible Society. If they have powerful
> application to offer, we will consider publishing them.” In more detail,
> this could mean:
> 1. The German Bible Society becomes the official partner of a developer’s
> community that develops free electronic tools for biblical studies, online
> and offline. I would suggest you to become the head of this developers
> community.
> 2. Every member of the community has to register with real name and
> address.
> 3. The German Bible Society provides the datasets of the Greek New
> Testament Bible text and of other Bible versions that are under copyright by
> GBS to the developer’s community for use in their development work.
> 4. Every developer signs an agreement that he/she will not forward the
> dataset(s) to third parties, will not alter the text in the datasets, will
> not publish the text(s) in print, offline or online without written
> permission of the German Bible Society.
> 5. The German Bible Society will run a website for publication of tools,
> online and for download, developed by members of the developer’s community.
> This website will be a special website for the results of the community
> work. I would suggest you to become the chief editor of this website.
> 6. The Bible versions under copyright by GBS will be available together
> with the mentioned tools from this website for online use free of charge.
> 7. The German Bible Society maintains the right to charge users of the
> website for access to additional content and for download of content that is
> under copyright by GBS.
> 8. Tools developed by members of the community that include the Biblical
> texts provided by GBS in part or as a whole must not be published or
> distributed elsewhere without written permission of the German Bible
> Society.
> 9. No payments are made between the German Bible Society and the
> developer’s community.
> Dear Weston,
> This is the outline of my concept. I am sure that many more aspects have to
> be discussed and decided, but this is just to give you an idea on how a
> collaboration between you and us could work. This takes into account the
> principles that you mentioned in your last email: “We open source developers
> are not seeking to profit off of your data; on the contrary, we are seeking
> to donate our time and skills to develop free scriptural applications that
> utilize the available data. We both have assets. Your asset is your data and
> scholarship, and our asset is our technical skills and resources.” I am sure
> that a concept as described above could use your resources as well as ours
> and serve your needs as well as ours.
Weston and I had an IRC chat on Saturday, July 18, 2009, therein we
discussed the GBS proposal as well as the concerns the community raised.
The main points from the discussion may be viewed here:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfwbwhr6_180fcwntrgf. I have also included
the transcript of the chat below.
We have not made any agreements with GBS yet, so please respond to the group
with any other concerns that you may have. Once we have decided the best
course of action as a group then we will be in further contact with GBS.
Thanks,
Jesse Griffin
==============================================
Begin Transcript
==============================================
* jag3773 has changed the topic to: German Bible Society's proposal for open
source licensing
<westonruter> Shall we go through the points?
<jag3773> alright
<westonruter> so your concerns are:
<westonruter> not put all of the eggs in my basket
<jag3773> haha
<westonruter> so to speak
<westonruter> which is a great point
<jag3773> well, i think we should do that, only indirectly
<jag3773> the eggs should go into Open Scriptures' basket
<westonruter> yes
<jag3773> and you are the leader of OS
<westonruter> yeah, but I think there should be a board of sorts
<westonruter> it's too much for one person to administer
<jag3773> i agree.. which brings up the whole non-profit question i think
<westonruter> yes
<westonruter> agreed
<jag3773> if we apply for non-profit status then we have to go through all
the hoops like getting a board, mission statement, etc.
<westonruter> yes
<jag3773> and we become more reputable, both to GBS and the world at large
<westonruter> yes
<westonruter> absolutely
<westonruter> good thoughts
<westonruter> and I think others mentioned that the source code would remain
open...
<westonruter> as you did
<westonruter> that we would reman true to ourselves
<jag3773> yes
<westonruter> working with GBS is an exciting opportunity
<westonruter> but we'd be working _with_ them, not _for_ them
<jag3773> exactly
<westonruter> so the take-away from your response is to press on with
establishing a non-profit
<westonruter> and ensure source code is open source
<jag3773> essentially, i think that would be a fair summation
<westonruter> so on to David Troidl's response
<westonruter> I believe that BHS is included in GBS's proposal
<jag3773> okay, that is really good for guys like me ;)
<westonruter> :-)
<westonruter> yes
<jag3773> no regarding his next "fair" statement...
<jag3773> are we actually going to be housing the datasets or will GBS be
housing the manuscripts and we are accessing them?
<westonruter> that is a good question
<jag3773> the latter is what i had thought
<westonruter> My feeling is that we would be GBS making their texts
available via a website that they own
<westonruter> for example, openscriptures.dbg.de
<jag3773> okay
<westonruter> so that it remains under their umbrella
<westonruter> this would go for texts that they own the copyright for
<westonruter> public domain or CC-licensed texts could be served from
openscriptures.org
<jag3773> so, if that is the case, how then do we incorporate those texts
into the manuscript compartor for instance
<jag3773> *comparator
<westonruter> I think the underlying data would be the same no matter which
domain you are accessing
<westonruter> but some data would not be retrievable
<westonruter> so if accessing via openscriptures.org, all GBS data would be
denied
<westonruter> if that makes sense
<jag3773> i'm not sure I like that idea... i was think that
openscriptures.org would access the manuscripts at dbg.de
<jag3773> in other words, only openscriptures.org has access to the files
that dgb.de posts
<westonruter> I think that would be ideal, but I don't think that is
acceptable to GBS
<westonruter> because they need to maintain the texts under their umbrella
<westonruter> we can use the texts freely if we operate under their umbrella
<westonruter> according to the proposal
<westonruter> as I see it
<jag3773> well, i'm concerned about duplicity of efforts and code now
<westonruter> yeah, so I think we would have one codebase
<westonruter> but just hosted at two locations
<westonruter> or something
<westonruter> that's just I've had in mind
<jag3773> perhaps this is over the top, but why have openscriptures.org in
that scenario?
<westonruter> but we definitely need to work through that more
<westonruter> well, we are indepdendent from GBS
<jag3773> nearly everyone would prefer the GBS texts though, right?
<westonruter> and not everything we do relates to GBS's texts
<westonruter> right
<westonruter> well, yeah
<westonruter> this is a great issue, though, that we need to think
through...
<jag3773> indeed
<jag3773> shall we move on then? we'll ask others for input on this issue
<westonruter> another concern is what would happen when a similar condition
is given by another Bible Society
<jag3773> yep
<westonruter> perhaps there would be a way to keep things hosted at
openscriptures.org...
<westonruter> but then to rebrand the site to feature GBS
<westonruter> or something
<westonruter> when using GBS texts
<jag3773> mmmm... if we could get an agreement where openscriptures.org is
given access to their manuscripts then I think that would be ideal
<westonruter> yeah
<westonruter> that would really jive with our mission too
<westonruter> we're not about drawing attention to Open Scriptures
<westonruter> but really to feature the work done by scholars
<westonruter> in a way
<jag3773> what do you think about this...
<westonruter> maybe that didn't come out quite right...
<jag3773> openscriptures.org is the outlet through which copyrighted texts
can be shared 'openly'... so GBS doesn't have to remove their copyright they
just give us the ability to use the manuscripts, of course without
distrubuting them
<jag3773> *distributing
<jag3773> so we are the open portal for those texts
<jag3773> and the same could happen with other Bible Societies as well
<westonruter> I think that would be ideal, but I don't think that satisfy's
the GBS requirements
<jag3773> which number does that violate?
<westonruter> That was kinda the initial problem, that they don't grant
licenses to use their texts online
<westonruter> on third-party websites
<jag3773> okay
<jag3773> number 5
<westonruter> ok, yeah
<jag3773> that throws a wrinkle into my thought process!
<westonruter> :-)
<jag3773> I'm getting a little nervous ;)
<westonruter> this relates to David's next response...
<westonruter> "Does this mean that the tools could be distributed elsewhere,
as long as they don't include the GBS texts? I'm thinking of tools that
have a wider application than just these specific texts."
<jag3773> right
<westonruter> All of the source code we develop would be open source
<westonruter> and distributable anywhere
<jag3773> right, that is an essential
<westonruter> it's just the GBS data that we would be prevented from
redistributig
<westonruter> *redistributing
<jag3773> haha, that word is a killer!
<westonruter> but we'd need go make sure that assumption
<jag3773> yes
<westonruter> but if all of our code is in Google Code SVN, then it's a
foregone conclusion
<jag3773> yep
<westonruter> but nevertheless
<westonruter> ok, so onto Nathan Smith's response?
<jag3773> okay
<jag3773> i assumed that users of the site would not have to be registered,
only developers
<westonruter> that is my thought as well
<jag3773> okay
<westonruter> the tools would be freely accessible to all, as would the data
for developers
<westonruter> just the developers would also need to register
<jag3773> "These last points effectively preclude any form of Open Source
<jag3773> license. I would recommend a strict separation between
OpenScriptures
<jag3773> and the GBS collaboration project."
<jag3773> I'm beginning to agree with that statement, but what do you think?
<jag3773> what exactly does "GBS will be an official partner of
openscriptures" mean
<westonruter> I'm not sure…
<westonruter> where does it say that?
<westonruter> nevermind
<jag3773> well, that is point 1
<westonruter> :-)
<westonruter> brb
<jag3773> k
<westonruter> ok
<jag3773> alright
<jag3773> i shared a google doc with you... just to document our concerns in
bullet point fashion
<westonruter> great!
<westonruter> I'm not sure that a strict separation between OS and GBS
projects would be helpful
<jag3773> why?
<westonruter> I mean, what would that even look like?
<westonruter> I mean, if it's the same tools
<jag3773> well, at this point there is no strict definition of OS anyway
<westonruter> that's right
<jag3773> just a group of loosely related ppl
<jag3773> let me say this..
<jag3773> I think this could become a 'side project' of OS but I do not want
this to become the main project of OS
<jag3773> does that make sense?
<westonruter> ok, yeah
<westonruter> I think that is good
<jag3773> given the fact that we are already a conglomerate of app ideas
this would merely be one of them
<westonruter> yes
<westonruter> although the GBS project would not be an app per se
<westonruter> but rather would have data to power apps
<westonruter> that's why a separation is kinda difficult
<jag3773> right... but i'm getting concerned that all of our apps will be
built to include their manuscripts which means there is little reason for
OS.org
<jag3773> we would just be a launchpad to develop GBS software
<westonruter> yes. So we'll need to make sure that none of their data is a
requirement to run the applications
<westonruter> everything should work fine with public domain data
<westonruter> their data would just be icing on the cake
<jag3773> I'm concerned that it will become more than that
<jag3773> *most ppl like icing on their cake
<westonruter> :-)
<jag3773> given the choice
<westonruter> true
Responding to some of the points in Considerations for the GBS Proposal to Open Scriptures
* Strict separation between Open Scriptures and cooperation with GBS
should not be necessary because the applications are open source;
the instances of the applications that feature GBS data are just
that, instances.
As far as I'm concerned, a strict separation is necessary. Any tools developed to work with their data, and hosted on their site, can draw from OpenScriptures tools and data, but should never be equated with them, regardless of "open source status". The Westminster Hebrew Morphology has been withdrawn from public distribution for just such considerations. Any "niggling doubt" that could be used as a legal crowbar should be vehemently guarded against.
* Would a GBS-branded openscriptures.org be considered to be under
GBS's umbrella? Or would a GBS-controlled domain be required, such
as openscriptures.dbg.de? What degree of GBS visibility is required?
As soon as the transcript turned to discussing "a GBS-branded openscriptures.org", it left me profoundly uncomfortable. In my reading of the GBS original points, there would be a GBS hosted site, where their material would be available, and any tools made available on that site would be essentially "under their control". If their is any GBS branding, it should remain strictly on that site. For OpenScriptures to remain open, it has to be free of such ties.
Once we have answers to the two points that end in question marks, we can discuss those.
Jesse Griffin wrote:
> Weston and I had an IRC chat on Saturday, July 18, 2009, therein we > discussed the GBS proposal as well as the concerns the community > raised. The main points from the discussion may be viewed here: > http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfwbwhr6_180fcwntrgf. I have also > included the transcript of the chat below.
> We have not made any agreements with GBS yet, so please respond to the > group with any other concerns that you may have. Once we have decided > the best course of action as a group then we will be in further > contact with GBS.
> Thanks,
> Jesse Griffin
> ==============================================
> Begin Transcript
> ==============================================
> * jag3773 has changed the topic to: German Bible Society's proposal > for open source licensing
> <westonruter> Shall we go through the points?
> <jag3773> alright
> <westonruter> so your concerns are:
> <westonruter> not put all of the eggs in my basket
> <jag3773> haha
> <westonruter> so to speak
> <westonruter> which is a great point
> <jag3773> well, i think we should do that, only indirectly
> <jag3773> the eggs should go into Open Scriptures' basket
> <westonruter> yes
> <jag3773> and you are the leader of OS
> <westonruter> yeah, but I think there should be a board of sorts
> <westonruter> it's too much for one person to administer
> <jag3773> i agree.. which brings up the whole non-profit question i think
> <westonruter> yes
> <westonruter> agreed
> <jag3773> if we apply for non-profit status then we have to go through > all the hoops like getting a board, mission statement, etc.
> <westonruter> yes
> <jag3773> and we become more reputable, both to GBS and the world at large
> <westonruter> yes
> <westonruter> absolutely
> <westonruter> good thoughts
> <westonruter> and I think others mentioned that the source code would > remain open...
> <westonruter> as you did
> <westonruter> that we would reman true to ourselves
> <jag3773> yes
> <westonruter> working with GBS is an exciting opportunity
> <westonruter> but we'd be working _with_ them, not _for_ them
> <jag3773> exactly
> <westonruter> so the take-away from your response is to press on with > establishing a non-profit
> <westonruter> and ensure source code is open source
> <jag3773> essentially, i think that would be a fair summation
> <westonruter> so on to David Troidl's response
> <westonruter> I believe that BHS is included in GBS's proposal
> <jag3773> okay, that is really good for guys like me ;)
> <westonruter> :-)
> <westonruter> yes
> <jag3773> no regarding his next "fair" statement...
> <jag3773> are we actually going to be housing the datasets or will GBS > be housing the manuscripts and we are accessing them?
> <westonruter> that is a good question
> <jag3773> the latter is what i had thought
> <westonruter> My feeling is that we would be GBS making their texts > available via a website that they own
> <westonruter> for example, openscriptures.dbg.de > <http://openscriptures.dbg.de>
> <jag3773> okay
> <westonruter> so that it remains under their umbrella
> <westonruter> this would go for texts that they own the copyright for
> <westonruter> public domain or CC-licensed texts could be served from > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org>
> <jag3773> so, if that is the case, how then do we incorporate those > texts into the manuscript compartor for instance
> <jag3773> *comparator
> <westonruter> I think the underlying data would be the same no matter > which domain you are accessing
> <westonruter> but some data would not be retrievable
> <westonruter> so if accessing via openscriptures.org > <http://openscriptures.org>, all GBS data would be denied
> <westonruter> if that makes sense
> <jag3773> i'm not sure I like that idea... i was think that > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> would access the > manuscripts at dbg.de <http://dbg.de>
> <jag3773> in other words, only openscriptures.org > <http://openscriptures.org> has access to the files that dgb.de > <http://dgb.de> posts
> <westonruter> I think that would be ideal, but I don't think that is > acceptable to GBS
> <westonruter> because they need to maintain the texts under their umbrella
> <westonruter> we can use the texts freely if we operate under their > umbrella
> <westonruter> according to the proposal
> <westonruter> as I see it
> <jag3773> well, i'm concerned about duplicity of efforts and code now
> <westonruter> yeah, so I think we would have one codebase
> <westonruter> but just hosted at two locations
> <westonruter> or something
> <westonruter> that's just I've had in mind
> <jag3773> perhaps this is over the top, but why have > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> in that scenario?
> <westonruter> but we definitely need to work through that more
> <westonruter> well, we are indepdendent from GBS
> <jag3773> nearly everyone would prefer the GBS texts though, right?
> <westonruter> and not everything we do relates to GBS's texts
> <westonruter> right
> <westonruter> well, yeah
> <westonruter> this is a great issue, though, that we need to think > through...
> <jag3773> indeed
> <jag3773> shall we move on then? we'll ask others for input on this issue
> <westonruter> another concern is what would happen when a similar > condition is given by another Bible Society
> <jag3773> yep
> <westonruter> perhaps there would be a way to keep things hosted at > openscriptures.org...
> <westonruter> but then to rebrand the site to feature GBS
> <westonruter> or something
> <westonruter> when using GBS texts
> <jag3773> mmmm... if we could get an agreement where > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> is given access to > their manuscripts then I think that would be ideal
> <westonruter> yeah
> <westonruter> that would really jive with our mission too
> <westonruter> we're not about drawing attention to Open Scriptures
> <westonruter> but really to feature the work done by scholars
> <westonruter> in a way
> <jag3773> what do you think about this...
> <westonruter> maybe that didn't come out quite right...
> <jag3773> openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> is the outlet > through which copyrighted texts can be shared 'openly'... so GBS > doesn't have to remove their copyright they just give us the ability > to use the manuscripts, of course without distrubuting them
> <jag3773> *distributing
> <jag3773> so we are the open portal for those texts
> <jag3773> and the same could happen with other Bible Societies as well
> <westonruter> I think that would be ideal, but I don't think that > satisfy's the GBS requirements
> <jag3773> which number does that violate?
> <westonruter> That was kinda the initial problem, that they don't > grant licenses to use their texts online
> <westonruter> on third-party websites
> <jag3773> okay
> <jag3773> number 5
> <westonruter> ok, yeah
> <jag3773> that throws a wrinkle into my thought process!
> <westonruter> :-)
> <jag3773> I'm getting a little nervous ;)
> <westonruter> this relates to David's next response...
> <westonruter> "Does this mean that the tools could be distributed > elsewhere, as long as they don't include the GBS texts? I'm thinking > of tools that have a wider application than just these specific texts."
> <jag3773> right
> <westonruter> All of the source code we develop would be open source
> <westonruter> and distributable anywhere
> <jag3773> right, that is an essential
> <westonruter> it's just the GBS data that we would be prevented from > redistributig
> <westonruter> *redistributing
> <jag3773> haha, that word is a killer!
> <westonruter> but we'd need go make sure that assumption
> <jag3773> yes
> <westonruter> but if all of our code is in Google Code SVN, then it's > a foregone conclusion
> <jag3773> yep
> <westonruter> but nevertheless
> <westonruter> ok, so onto Nathan Smith's response?
> <jag3773> okay
> <jag3773> i assumed that users of the site would not have to be > registered, only developers
> <westonruter> that is my thought as well
> <jag3773> okay
> <westonruter> the tools would be freely accessible to all, as would > the data for developers
For what it's worth I share Jesse and David's concerns about a
partnership with GBS. While keeping their manuscripts on their servers
is obviously their prerogative, I definitely like the idea of
openscriptures being a separate entity.
There will be other organizations who will want to host up copies of
the openscriptures codebase on their own site (or embed it via an
iframe, etc.) so we need them to be able to do that easily without
worrying about separating GBS manuscripts.
There will also be more manuscripts that organizations like GBS will
be uncomfortable serving up freely. This is where a more general
solution would be ideal. I think you've already talked about this.
Something like what is beginning to happen with type foundries and the
web. Some middle-man organizations are springing up that host the font
files and charge a fee per domain, giving the proper royalties to the
type foundries. This would be great for making many of the
translations and/or manuscripts available to developers and even
church sites who want to embed a bible reader.
I think it's sad that GBS doesn't get the spirit of the web or
understand the technology enough to see that an island of standalone
data will most likely be left behind.
Anyway ... sorry for the quick rant, but there's my two cents. I agree
that "a worker is worthy of his wages", but assuming there's a
mechanism for that ... let's work together here!
Joel
On Jul 19, 10:49 am, David Troidl <DavidTro...@aol.com> wrote:
> Responding to some of the points in Considerations for the GBS Proposal
> to Open Scriptures
> * Strict separation between Open Scriptures and cooperation with GBS
> should not be necessary because the applications are open source;
> the instances of the applications that feature GBS data are just
> that, instances.
> As far as I'm concerned, a strict separation is necessary. Any tools
> developed to work with their data, and hosted on their site, can draw
> from OpenScriptures tools and data, but should never be equated with
> them, regardless of "open source status". The Westminster Hebrew
> Morphology has been withdrawn from public distribution for just such
> considerations. Any "niggling doubt" that could be used as a legal
> crowbar should be vehemently guarded against.
> * Would a GBS-branded openscriptures.org be considered to be under
> GBS's umbrella? Or would a GBS-controlled domain be required, such
> as openscriptures.dbg.de? What degree of GBS visibility is required?
> As soon as the transcript turned to discussing "a GBS-branded
> openscriptures.org", it left me profoundly uncomfortable. In my reading
> of the GBS original points, there would be a GBS hosted site, where
> their material would be available, and any tools made available on that
> site would be essentially "under their control". If their is any GBS
> branding, it should remain strictly on that site. For OpenScriptures to
> remain open, it has to be free of such ties.
> Once we have answers to the two points that end in question marks, we
> can discuss those.
> Peace,
> David
> Jesse Griffin wrote:
> > Weston and I had an IRC chat on Saturday, July 18, 2009, therein we
> > discussed the GBS proposal as well as the concerns the community
> > raised. The main points from the discussion may be viewed here:
> >http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfwbwhr6_180fcwntrgf. I have also
> > included the transcript of the chat below.
> > We have not made any agreements with GBS yet, so please respond to the
> > group with any other concerns that you may have. Once we have decided
> > the best course of action as a group then we will be in further
> > contact with GBS.
> > Thanks,
> > Jesse Griffin
> > ==============================================
> > Begin Transcript
> > ==============================================
> > * jag3773 has changed the topic to: German Bible Society's proposal
> > for open source licensing
> > <westonruter> Shall we go through the points?
> > <jag3773> alright
> > <westonruter> so your concerns are:
> > <westonruter> not put all of the eggs in my basket
> > <jag3773> haha
> > <westonruter> so to speak
> > <westonruter> which is a great point
> > <jag3773> well, i think we should do that, only indirectly
> > <jag3773> the eggs should go into Open Scriptures' basket
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <jag3773> and you are the leader of OS
> > <westonruter> yeah, but I think there should be a board of sorts
> > <westonruter> it's too much for one person to administer
> > <jag3773> i agree.. which brings up the whole non-profit question i think
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <westonruter> agreed
> > <jag3773> if we apply for non-profit status then we have to go through
> > all the hoops like getting a board, mission statement, etc.
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <jag3773> and we become more reputable, both to GBS and the world at large
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <westonruter> absolutely
> > <westonruter> good thoughts
> > <westonruter> and I think others mentioned that the source code would
> > remain open...
> > <westonruter> as you did
> > <westonruter> that we would reman true to ourselves
> > <jag3773> yes
> > <westonruter> working with GBS is an exciting opportunity
> > <westonruter> but we'd be working _with_ them, not _for_ them
> > <jag3773> exactly
> > <westonruter> so the take-away from your response is to press on with
> > establishing a non-profit
> > <westonruter> and ensure source code is open source
> > <jag3773> essentially, i think that would be a fair summation
> > <westonruter> so on to David Troidl's response
> > <westonruter> I believe that BHS is included in GBS's proposal
> > <jag3773> okay, that is really good for guys like me ;)
> > <westonruter> :-)
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <jag3773> no regarding his next "fair" statement...
> > <jag3773> are we actually going to be housing the datasets or will GBS
> > be housing the manuscripts and we are accessing them?
> > <westonruter> that is a good question
> > <jag3773> the latter is what i had thought
> > <westonruter> My feeling is that we would be GBS making their texts
> > available via a website that they own
> > <westonruter> for example, openscriptures.dbg.de
> > <http://openscriptures.dbg.de>
> > <jag3773> okay
> > <westonruter> so that it remains under their umbrella
> > <westonruter> this would go for texts that they own the copyright for
> > <westonruter> public domain or CC-licensed texts could be served from
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org>
> > <jag3773> so, if that is the case, how then do we incorporate those
> > texts into the manuscript compartor for instance
> > <jag3773> *comparator
> > <westonruter> I think the underlying data would be the same no matter
> > which domain you are accessing
> > <westonruter> but some data would not be retrievable
> > <westonruter> so if accessing via openscriptures.org
> > <http://openscriptures.org>, all GBS data would be denied
> > <westonruter> if that makes sense
> > <jag3773> i'm not sure I like that idea... i was think that
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> would access the
> > manuscripts at dbg.de <http://dbg.de>
> > <jag3773> in other words, only openscriptures.org
> > <http://openscriptures.org> has access to the files that dgb.de
> > <http://dgb.de> posts
> > <westonruter> I think that would be ideal, but I don't think that is
> > acceptable to GBS
> > <westonruter> because they need to maintain the texts under their umbrella
> > <westonruter> we can use the texts freely if we operate under their
> > umbrella
> > <westonruter> according to the proposal
> > <westonruter> as I see it
> > <jag3773> well, i'm concerned about duplicity of efforts and code now
> > <westonruter> yeah, so I think we would have one codebase
> > <westonruter> but just hosted at two locations
> > <westonruter> or something
> > <westonruter> that's just I've had in mind
> > <jag3773> perhaps this is over the top, but why have
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> in that scenario?
> > <westonruter> but we definitely need to work through that more
> > <westonruter> well, we are indepdendent from GBS
> > <jag3773> nearly everyone would prefer the GBS texts though, right?
> > <westonruter> and not everything we do relates to GBS's texts
> > <westonruter> right
> > <westonruter> well, yeah
> > <westonruter> this is a great issue, though, that we need to think
> > through...
> > <jag3773> indeed
> > <jag3773> shall we move on then? we'll ask others for input on this issue
> > <westonruter> another concern is what would happen when a similar
> > condition is given by another Bible Society
> > <jag3773> yep
> > <westonruter> perhaps there would be a way to keep things hosted at
> > openscriptures.org...
> > <westonruter> but then to rebrand the site to feature GBS
> > <westonruter> or something
> > <westonruter> when using GBS texts
> > <jag3773> mmmm... if we could get an agreement where
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> is given access to
> > their manuscripts then I think that would be ideal
> > <westonruter> yeah
> > <westonruter> that would really jive with our mission too
> > <westonruter> we're not about drawing attention to Open Scriptures
> > <westonruter> but really to feature the work done by scholars
> > <westonruter> in a way
> > <jag3773> what do you think about this...
> > <westonruter> maybe that didn't come out quite right...
> > <jag3773> openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> is the outlet
> > through which copyrighted texts can be shared 'openly'... so GBS
> > doesn't have to remove their copyright they just give us the ability
> > to use the manuscripts, of course without
I agree with you and Joel. Open-scriptures should not in any way "be under the umbrella" of any other organization. If history guides us, we should know that the love of money and control will subvert freedom. I'm dead set against getting entangled in any hooks set by other organizations or individuals. That is my word.
On Sunday 19 July 2009 7:49:11 am David Troidl wrote:
> Responding to some of the points in Considerations for the GBS Proposal
> to Open Scriptures
> * Strict separation between Open Scriptures and cooperation with GBS
> should not be necessary because the applications are open source;
> the instances of the applications that feature GBS data are just
> that, instances.
> As far as I'm concerned, a strict separation is necessary. Any tools
> developed to work with their data, and hosted on their site, can draw
> from OpenScriptures tools and data, but should never be equated with
> them, regardless of "open source status". The Westminster Hebrew
> Morphology has been withdrawn from public distribution for just such
> considerations. Any "niggling doubt" that could be used as a legal
> crowbar should be vehemently guarded against.
> * Would a GBS-branded openscriptures.org be considered to be under
> GBS's umbrella? Or would a GBS-controlled domain be required, such
> as openscriptures.dbg.de? What degree of GBS visibility is required?
> As soon as the transcript turned to discussing "a GBS-branded
> openscriptures.org", it left me profoundly uncomfortable. In my reading
> of the GBS original points, there would be a GBS hosted site, where
> their material would be available, and any tools made available on that
> site would be essentially "under their control". If their is any GBS
> branding, it should remain strictly on that site. For OpenScriptures to
> remain open, it has to be free of such ties.
> Once we have answers to the two points that end in question marks, we
> can discuss those.
> Peace,
> David
> Jesse Griffin wrote:
> > Weston and I had an IRC chat on Saturday, July 18, 2009, therein we
> > discussed the GBS proposal as well as the concerns the community
> > raised. The main points from the discussion may be viewed here:
> > http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfwbwhr6_180fcwntrgf. I have also
> > included the transcript of the chat below.
> > We have not made any agreements with GBS yet, so please respond to the
> > group with any other concerns that you may have. Once we have decided
> > the best course of action as a group then we will be in further
> > contact with GBS.
> > Thanks,
> > Jesse Griffin
> > ==============================================
> > Begin Transcript
> > ==============================================
> > * jag3773 has changed the topic to: German Bible Society's proposal
> > for open source licensing
> > <westonruter> Shall we go through the points?
> > <jag3773> alright
> > <westonruter> so your concerns are:
> > <westonruter> not put all of the eggs in my basket
> > <jag3773> haha
> > <westonruter> so to speak
> > <westonruter> which is a great point
> > <jag3773> well, i think we should do that, only indirectly
> > <jag3773> the eggs should go into Open Scriptures' basket
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <jag3773> and you are the leader of OS
> > <westonruter> yeah, but I think there should be a board of sorts
> > <westonruter> it's too much for one person to administer
> > <jag3773> i agree.. which brings up the whole non-profit question i think
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <westonruter> agreed
> > <jag3773> if we apply for non-profit status then we have to go through
> > all the hoops like getting a board, mission statement, etc.
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <jag3773> and we become more reputable, both to GBS and the world at
> > large <westonruter> yes
> > <westonruter> absolutely
> > <westonruter> good thoughts
> > <westonruter> and I think others mentioned that the source code would
> > remain open...
> > <westonruter> as you did
> > <westonruter> that we would reman true to ourselves
> > <jag3773> yes
> > <westonruter> working with GBS is an exciting opportunity
> > <westonruter> but we'd be working _with_ them, not _for_ them
> > <jag3773> exactly
> > <westonruter> so the take-away from your response is to press on with
> > establishing a non-profit
> > <westonruter> and ensure source code is open source
> > <jag3773> essentially, i think that would be a fair summation
> > <westonruter> so on to David Troidl's response
> > <westonruter> I believe that BHS is included in GBS's proposal
> > <jag3773> okay, that is really good for guys like me ;)
> > <westonruter> :-)
> > <westonruter> yes
> > <jag3773> no regarding his next "fair" statement...
> > <jag3773> are we actually going to be housing the datasets or will GBS
> > be housing the manuscripts and we are accessing them?
> > <westonruter> that is a good question
> > <jag3773> the latter is what i had thought
> > <westonruter> My feeling is that we would be GBS making their texts
> > available via a website that they own
> > <westonruter> for example, openscriptures.dbg.de
> > <http://openscriptures.dbg.de>
> > <jag3773> okay
> > <westonruter> so that it remains under their umbrella
> > <westonruter> this would go for texts that they own the copyright for
> > <westonruter> public domain or CC-licensed texts could be served from
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org>
> > <jag3773> so, if that is the case, how then do we incorporate those
> > texts into the manuscript compartor for instance
> > <jag3773> *comparator
> > <westonruter> I think the underlying data would be the same no matter
> > which domain you are accessing
> > <westonruter> but some data would not be retrievable
> > <westonruter> so if accessing via openscriptures.org
> > <http://openscriptures.org>, all GBS data would be denied
> > <westonruter> if that makes sense
> > <jag3773> i'm not sure I like that idea... i was think that
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> would access the
> > manuscripts at dbg.de <http://dbg.de>
> > <jag3773> in other words, only openscriptures.org
> > <http://openscriptures.org> has access to the files that dgb.de
> > <http://dgb.de> posts
> > <westonruter> I think that would be ideal, but I don't think that is
> > acceptable to GBS
> > <westonruter> because they need to maintain the texts under their
> > umbrella <westonruter> we can use the texts freely if we operate under
> > their umbrella
> > <westonruter> according to the proposal
> > <westonruter> as I see it
> > <jag3773> well, i'm concerned about duplicity of efforts and code now
> > <westonruter> yeah, so I think we would have one codebase
> > <westonruter> but just hosted at two locations
> > <westonruter> or something
> > <westonruter> that's just I've had in mind
> > <jag3773> perhaps this is over the top, but why have
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> in that scenario?
> > <westonruter> but we definitely need to work through that more
> > <westonruter> well, we are indepdendent from GBS
> > <jag3773> nearly everyone would prefer the GBS texts though, right?
> > <westonruter> and not everything we do relates to GBS's texts
> > <westonruter> right
> > <westonruter> well, yeah
> > <westonruter> this is a great issue, though, that we need to think
> > through...
> > <jag3773> indeed
> > <jag3773> shall we move on then? we'll ask others for input on this issue
> > <westonruter> another concern is what would happen when a similar
> > condition is given by another Bible Society
> > <jag3773> yep
> > <westonruter> perhaps there would be a way to keep things hosted at
> > openscriptures.org...
> > <westonruter> but then to rebrand the site to feature GBS
> > <westonruter> or something
> > <westonruter> when using GBS texts
> > <jag3773> mmmm... if we could get an agreement where
> > openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> is given access to
> > their manuscripts then I think that would be ideal
> > <westonruter> yeah
> > <westonruter> that would really jive with our mission too
> > <westonruter> we're not about drawing attention to Open Scriptures
> > <westonruter> but really to feature the work done by scholars
> > <westonruter> in a way
> > <jag3773> what do you think about this...
> > <westonruter> maybe that didn't come out quite right...
> > <jag3773> openscriptures.org <http://openscriptures.org> is the outlet
> > through which copyrighted texts can be shared 'openly'... so GBS
> > doesn't have to remove their copyright they just give us the ability
> > to use the manuscripts, of course without distrubuting them
> > <jag3773> *distributing
> > <jag3773> so we are the open portal for those texts
> > <jag3773> and the same could happen with other Bible Societies as well
> > <westonruter> I think that would be ideal, but I don't think that
> > satisfy's the GBS requirements
> > <jag3773> which number does that violate?
> > <westonruter> That was kinda the initial problem, that they don't
> > grant licenses to use their texts online
> > <westonruter> on third-party websites
> > <jag3773> okay
> > <jag3773> number 5
> > <westonruter> ok, yeah
> > <jag3773> that throws a wrinkle into my thought process!
> > <westonruter> :-)
> > <jag3773> I'm getting a little nervous ;)
> > <westonruter> this relates to David's next response...
> > <westonruter> "Does this mean that the tools could be distributed
> > elsewhere, as long as they don't include the GBS texts? I'm thinking
> > of tools that have a wider application than just these specific texts."
> > <jag3773> right
> > <westonruter> All of the source code we develop would be open source
> > <westonruter> and distributable anywhere
> > <jag3773> right, that is an
|
