UK copyright law makes this package illegal to distribute

Bug #1089053 reported by Silas S. Brown on 2012-12-11
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
sword-text-kjv (Ubuntu)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

As I reported with the bible-kjv-text package (Bug #1089050), in the UK (but not the rest of the world), the copyright on the Authorized (King James) version of the Bible is perpetual and it may only be printed, distributed or imported by those who have official royal permission. I don't know if there are any special exceptions for electronic distribution; if there are not, then technically Canonical Ltd (a UK company) cannot "distribute" this package or any CD image of Ubuntu which contains it, and it would be illegal for any UK resident to log on to a non-UK site to download the package (or a CD image containing it) if that counts as "importing". (It would also make it illegal for UK residents to download any other free software that contains the KJV text.)

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: sword-text-kjv (not installed)
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-32.51-generic 3.2.30
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-32-generic i686
ApportVersion: 2.0.1-0ubuntu14
Architecture: i386
Date: Tue Dec 11 18:23:56 2012
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release i386 (20101007)
ProcEnviron:
 TERM=xterm
 PATH=(custom, user)
 LANG=en_GB.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: sword-text-kjv
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to precise on 2012-10-22 (50 days ago)

Silas S. Brown (ssb22) wrote :

Cambridge University Press at http://www.cambridge.org/home/page/item6459996/ say "We grant permission to use the text, and license printing or the importation for sale within the UK, as long as we are assured of acceptable quality and accuracy" and the permission request form is at http://www.cambridge.org/rights/corporate/permission.htm so could somebody ask them for appropriate permissions on this version?

Teus Benschop (teusbenschop) wrote :

The original text comes from Crosswire at crossfire.org.

If this is a bug, they have a bug tracker at http://tracker.crosswire.org/

They will be the ones who most likely have already looked into this, because they are distributing this module. If they have not yet looked into this, they will be the ones who need to request the permission.

May you please forward this bug to Crosswire.

Thank you for your contribution to Debian and Ubuntu

Changed in sword-text-kjv (Ubuntu):
status: New → Invalid

Thanks, but Crosswire is in Arizona, which is not in the UK, so
Crosswire don't have to worry about UK-specific copyright laws.

The distributors of Ubuntu, Canonical Ltd, are based in the UK.
So it's Ubuntu that needs to get the permission, not Crosswire.

It might be possible for Crosswire to obtain permission "in advance"
for UK downstream distributors of their text, but they'd probably
count that as a "feature request" rather than a bug.

It would also depend if CUP are willing to grant transferrable permissions.
A transferrable permission would be best anyway, otherwise Ubuntu may
have to move this package to "non-free". But at least having a
permission of any kind is better than having none at all. I would
imagine Canonical Ltd would have more resources than Crosswire to
sort this out.

Changed in sword-text-kjv (Ubuntu):
status: Invalid → New
Silas S. Brown (ssb22) wrote :

Thanks, but Crosswire is in Arizona, which is not in the UK, so
Crosswire don't have to worry about UK-specific copyright laws.

The distributors of Ubuntu, Canonical Ltd, are based in the UK.
So it's Ubuntu that needs to get the permission, not Crosswire.

It might be possible for Crosswire to obtain permission "in advance"
for UK downstream distributors of their text, but they'd probably
count that as a "feature request" rather than a bug.

It would also depend if CUP are willing to grant transferrable permissions.
A transferrable permission would be best anyway, otherwise Ubuntu may
have to move this package to "non-free". But at least having a
permission of any kind is better than having none at all. I would
imagine Canonical Ltd would have more resources than Crosswire to
sort this out.

Teus Benschop (teusbenschop) wrote :

Ah okay, thank you.
I would say, let the holder of the copyright come up with a claim, and then it can be looked into.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers