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

[DM Smith]

Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
> DM Smith escreveu:
>>
>> On May 5, 2006, at 5:11 AM, DArio Matos wrote:
>>
>>> different versions (I'm still collecting them as personally I have a 
>>> hard copy of only three of them: Almeida Revista e Corrigida, 
>>> Almeida Revista e Atualizada, Almeida Contemporânea).
> […]
>>> Actually, I thik it would be easier to make a new version of an 
>>> Almeida-like portuguese translation of the Bible, released under GPL 
>>> or other public license - that is, to make an entirely new  "Almeida 
>>> Livre" - than to gain authorisation to distribute one copyrighted 
>>> Almeida Bible on the Net.
>>
>> Go for it! But don't use a copyright work as your basis. IIRC, pre 
>> 1906 is the date to work from. Given that you have 3 of the hard copy 
>> texts, you are in a good position to do the work.
>
>     Actually 1911 according to the US rules, I haven’t yet found out 
> the Brazilian situation but I think it is less harsh.  AFAICR, early 
> 1940s should be OK, but it is better to double-check.
>
>     Anyway, of the three hardcopy texts Dário mentions, only Corrigida 
> is public domain.
>
>
>> Anyone is welcomed to take any public domain Bible and create an 
>> eText from it. There may be issues with using an eText that someone 
>> else produced as they can license that effort as they like.
>
>     I have a problem with that.  The Scriptures are far too important 
> to anyone to touch.  For example, the people who have been involved 
> with PorAA up to now have shown too little respect for text integrity.

Ok, ok. Anyone is welcomed to take any public domain Bible and create an 
eText from it provided that they have the utmost respect for text 
integrity and will verify their work as having that integrity....

And I think Crosswire has a responsibility to not accept texts that lack 
a certain level of quality, excepting extraordinary circumstances. (It 
might be arguable that a work of mediocre quality that is unique is 
better than nothing. Which appears to be the reasoning behind keeping 
PorAA available.)
>
>
>> I think there are separate issues here.
>> One is a technical encoding issue that the module is incorrectly 
>> encoded.
>> Another is a textual quality issue. (missing/wrong text, ...)
>> A third is that of ownership(copyright) and proper naming.
>>
>> The first one we can solve.
>
>     It was solved already.  

But it was not solved in isolation. It was the additional changes that 
caused the effort to be turned away.

> But is it worthwhile to produce a text correctly encoded with 
> misspellings and missing and garbled text?

Yes and no.

Yes in that badly coded texts are handled badly by Sword applications, 
making the application look bad when in fact the problem is not the 
application but the module's encoding.

No. Because it is confusing to the user's of the module. I think that 
users have the implicit assumption that the modules are textually 
correct. After all, how can a Bible translation be "inerrant" and 
"infallible" if there are misspellings, missing verses and garbled text.

Yes. Because it does not further cloud the copyright questions. While 
PorAA might be in violation of copyright, as you contend it is, we have 
not been contacted by a responsible party to contest it.

No. Because everyone who merely fixes the technical issues is not 
satisfied with that and wants to fix the textual problems. This 
indicates that the technical issues are not the real problem.

Yes. Because fixing the textual issues such that it matches a 
copyrighted work will infringe on copyright.

>
>
>
>> The second raises further copyright questions and if I remember, 
>> Chris stated that CrossWire would not accept such an effort.
>
>     I couldn’t understand his reasoning at all.
>
>     If the second issue raises issues, we should take PorAA out 
> immediately, because we can’t trace it back to anything else than 
> Revisada.  Chris said someone could, but he never said whom nor how.

As I noted above, Crosswire has not been contacted by a responsible 
party contesting the modules copyright status. When folks here are 
officially notified, the questionable modules are removed.

The other way that it might be removed is that if the Portuguese 
speaking people here would agree that it should not be available based 
on quality issues.

>
>
>
>> The third requires negotiation with and permission from the copyright 
>> owner.
>
>     That is the course I am currently into.

Keep pressing on!! And I am assuming it is not for the module that is 
currently hosted, but the one you created.