[sword-devel] Re: Re: Offer help (portuguese module?)

[Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA]

Em Tue, 02 May 2006 11:23:44 +0200, Sergio Queiroz escreveu:

> Indeed, the PorAA has some problems with strange characters at each
> verse ending and with some accents, like the "à". But that it is a
> corrupted copy of a copyrighted work is the personal opinion of
> Leandro Dutra.

  No, it is not.


> It is normal that you cannot find any bible in print with the exact
> text of this version, as the brazilian bible editors have changed a
> bit the translation over the years to ameliorate it and also to have
> copyright rights over the new text (and in this way preserve their
> commercial interests).

  Please stop spreading misinformation.  Just compare the PorAA with
the Versão Revisada.

 
> If you look at the history of this list, you will see a message (I
> think that by Chris Little) where he affirms that Crosswire Society
> knows where this version traces to, and that it has no copyright
> problems.

  More misinformation.  All we know is the website it comes from
(UnBounded Bible if memory doesn’t fail me), and then the site’s
administrators never answered requests for clarification.


> Notice that the translation by Joao Ferreira de Almeida is very old
> (dates from the XVII century--for the new testament at least), so it
> has multiple revisions by different bodies, some free of copyright,
> some others not.

  So what?


> The modifications of Leandro could not be accepted because he has
> not only solved the technical problems of the module, he has also
> updated the text to reflect the copyrighted work that he
> mentions. So it could no longer be distributed without the
> authorization of the copyright holders of that version.

  Sérgio, it is quite interesting how you phantasize the past to fit
your world view.  Problem is, it amounts to a lie, if unintentional.

  I didn’t ‘update the text to reflect the copyrighted work that (I)
mention(ed)’.  I just fixed typos and missing text.  Do a diff
yourself.


> Saying that this version is corrupted is a very far cry. I use it
> frequently in a small group study group, where we are from different
> nationalities, and we normally use the PorAA, the King James
> (english) and the Louis Segond (french) at the same time, to study
> the same text. I've never found a "corruption" in the PorAA text
> (I'm brazilian but also fluent in english and french). In fact, it
> is often almost the same as the King James version.

  So you haven’t read enough.  There are quite some missing passages,
sometimes starting or finishing at mid-sentence or even truncating
words.  Even passing PorAA thru a spellchecker will show you corrupted
passages.


> So, I think that you can use the PorAA without fears of having a corrupted
> version.

  Problem is, you ‘think’ too much but never check the facts.


> And it is much better to have a free portuguese module with some
> technical problems than no portuguese module at all.

  Not ‘some technical problems’ only.  Real missing text, real garbled
text.


> I have at home a small shell script that I have used to correct the
> problems with the "à" and the "À" as well as the strange characters
> at the end of verses

  If you could be bothered to write a shell script to fix the errors
you see, how come you can’t be bothered to diff it against my files
and see for yourself PorAA is actually a corrupted Revisada?

  Please please please stop this nonsense!


-- 
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA     +55 (11) 5685 2219
http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/        +55 (11) 9406 7191
mailto:leandro at dutra.fastmail.fm
xmpp:leandrod at jabber.org                              BRASIL