Some trends in e-Sword Resources

I spent six hours Monday, and eight hours Tuesday adding resources to Currently Available e-Sword Resources. I'm barely a quarter of the way thru the resources listed at YahooGroups. I won't get to the resources listed at esnips.com until next month, or maybe January.

I have noticed several disturbing trends.

• Little to no information in the "description" at the site that the resource is available from;
• An absence of copyright information in the "Details Table" of the resource;
• The same resource is uploaded to half a dozen sites;
  

There are two versions of The Babylonian Talmud, available as e-Sword resources. Most of the sites do not state which translation it is of. Each site has a slightly different archive name for it.

There are five versions of The Jerusalem Bible, in Spanish. At least the details table states what the differences are --- for three of them. The first edition, the second edition, and the third edition. One of the other versions is a complete mess. The fifth version is an attempt to clean up the mess that the fourth version has. None of them provide any information about the copyright holder, or whether or not permission to distribute the resources has been granted.

If it seems like I harp on this, it is because I want to use resources that can be legally distributed. I also don't want to download the same resource from two or more different sites, simply because it has a different name in the archive.

I also have been wondering about including resources in Z-XML, OSIS, and GBF format in the document. All three formats are trivial to convert to e-Sword.

I did decide against listing BibleWorks resources, because even though converting them to e-Sword is trivial, doing so is a copyright/license violation. I'll also point out that several resources listed appear to be from BibleWorks.

Why include "Copied from Bibleworks" in the description field of the details table, and leave all the other information about the resource out? [I don't remember which resources had that. ]

I haven't seen any resources that obviously were format shifted from either CROSS, or LDLS resources.