On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Barry Drake wrote: > Hi there ......... > > On 1 Jul 2004 at 13:38, Chris Little wrote: > > Also, I don't know the feelings of others with regard to third party > > distribution of modules. > > For my two-penn'orth, I'd say go for it! Any means that makes modules > - especially quality ones like NET - available to all has to be wonderful! > Install manager is useful, but not vital, and wouldn't be a problem for > the majority of users. All the plain downloads have directory paths in > the zip file, so it only needs extracting with paths into the Sword path to > work. Inserting the cypher-key is a little more complicated, but I'm sure > most users are capable of using a plaintext editor and following a > simple instruction. > > I know it's a pity - but I can well understand copyright holders wanting > to be in control. Let them in - let them use the world's finest piece of > bible software.
The problem with this perspective (which is, I believe, the prevailing perspective of many copyright holders) is that it's bad for users, bad for sales, and bad for copyright holders. As a user, it is a real hassle to have to jump through so many hoops just to get a legal copy of a module. This is just for one module. Imagine I wanted to pay for five different modules from five different copyright holders. If this kind of model is adopted, I have to buy five keys from five sites plus download from five different sites and (hopefully) configure InstallMgr to check those five sites for future updates. We could at least limit the hassle to just paying at five sites and downloading everything from central repositories (or, reasonably, from complete mirrors). The problem with hassle is that it discourages being a customer. Why go through all the trouble of getting the NET for Sword when it's so much easier to get a copy for Logos? It also encourages illegal activity. Why jump through hoops to buy a legal copy when copying a friends is ten times easier? (I bought my first Cactus Copy Protected CD a couple days ago and the trouble it gave me as I tried to copy its songs to my iPod has me a little bitter towards content owners who are grossly inept when it comes to realizing who ultimately pays their salaries--or who decides to cease paying them and fire up a P2P client.) People will eventually come to the realization that if copyright holders actually wanted to sell licenses, they wouldn't make it so difficult. I guess my point is that if this is the only way BSF will sell licenses, that's their choice and we'll honor it. But they should still be advised that it's a bad idea from all perspectives. --Chris _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
