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

[DM Smith]

As it stands, Chris has offered to do independent and impartial  
evaluation of the texts and make a determination. Works for me. So, I  
don't plan to respond more to this thread until he reports his findings.

On May 31, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA  
wrote:

> DM Smith escreveu:
>> Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
>>> DM Smith escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> On May 5, 2006, at 5:11 AM, DArio Matos wrote:
>>>
>>>     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....
>
> 	Yep.
>
>
>> 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.)
>
> 	That, and some reliance on some unspecified information by an  
> unnamed source I really can’t fathom.  It seems to be deference  
> UnBounded if I am not mistaken, but I can’t understand such  
> deference for a misnamed and corrupted text no one knows for sure  
> where it came from, as several people attested already.
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> 	Yet without these ‘additional changes’ the text has several  
> important omissions.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 	If that is the problem (only this week this has been stated), I  
> can ask them to.  I just wonder if it is so hard to check it  
> ourselves.  If you want me to scan a few pages of my Revisada and  
> send it here or publish somewhere I can do that.
>
>
>> Yes. Because fixing the textual issues such that it matches a  
>> copyrighted work will infringe on copyright.
>
> 	Can you infringe more something that is infringed already?
>
> 	It already matches the work under copy rights even without the fixes.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 	What irks me is that no one else here seems to have even looked at  
> a copy of Versão Revisada, yet feels qualified to pontificate about  
> PorAA being something different.
>
> 	Now that Chris has said he will try to do that, I’m assuaged.
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> 	They are the same, except for garbled and missing text, so I don’t  
> see how different that would be.
>
> 	IBB hasn’t been responsive in the past, but their last answer  
> actually gave me some hope, and I published it here already I think  
> last year.  I guess enough time passed for me to press them again.
>
> 	One thing I thought is that they are doing a further revision of  
> Revisada, named ‘Almeida Século XXI’, under the coordination of  
> Luís Alberto Teixeira SAYÃO, the same scholar who did our NVI  
> (equivalent to your NIV).  They already have the NT published.  I  
> hope once they have it all, perhaps they will relent on the older,  
> but still useful, Revisada.
>
> 	But in the end, I think a better effort will be to incorporate the  
> Tradução Brasileira.
>
>
> -- 
> Leandro G Faria Corcete DUTRA       xmpp:leandrod at jabber.org
> +55 (11) 5685 2219             Yahoo!: ymsgr:sendIM?lgcdutra
> +55 (11) 9406 7191     ICQ/AIM: aim:GoIM?screenname=61287803
>            MSN: msnim:chat?contact=leandro at dutra.fastmail.fm
> <leandro.vcf>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page