[sword-devel] French Darby (Public Domain?)

[Trevor Jenkins]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, John H. <mistamaila at gmail.com> wrote:

> You are right that the original KJV is not in use anymore.  A side
> note to this is the obvious effect it has on  the KJV only debate, as
> no one really uses the KJV anymore(the true one).

And then again which true one; for weren't there two different printers
involved and each made slight errors in their first print runs.
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 11:51 AM, DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I cannot answer for the French Darby Bible translation. I can shed
> > some light on the KJV. It may be parallel.
> >
> > I worked on the latest cleanup of CrossWire's KJV module. In the
> > process I discovered many things about the KJV that came as a surprise
> > to me.
> >
> > The KJV has been the subject of numerous revisions, many of them
> > silently undertaken by publishers. There is no such thing as the
> > definitive KJV in print today. If you were to compare the current crop
> > of KJV bibles available today for purchase, word-for-word, you would
> > find very few differences. But you would find differences. For
> > example, if you compared the "Scofield KJV Bible" with the "Old
> > Scofield KJV Bible", which supposedly differ only in the notes, you
> > would find several dozen textual differences.
> >
> > If a publisher changes a work which is out of copyright, they can
> > copyright their changes. That work is a derivative work. As a
> > practice, they do not identify their changes. And in the case of the
> > KJV I have not seen a publisher own up to changing the text. But I see
> > copyright statements on a good number of KJV Bibles. One might assume
> > that the text is not copyrighted but that the notes, comments,
> > introductory material is what is claimed as copyrighted. Having read
> > the copyright statements in dozens of KJV Bibles currently in print, I
> > did not see such a distinction. Only a flat claim that the book was
> > copyrighted.
> >
> > Some have claimed, and I have no information or opinion as to whether
> > it is true, that publishers make textual changes so as to identify
> > their work.
> >
> > The only perfect way to validate an e-text as being out-of-copyright
> > is to compare it word for word, feature for feature, .... to a hard
> > copy actually printed long enough ago.
> >
> > I'm not sure that sheds any light on your question.
> >
> > In His Service,
> >         DM
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 22, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Kostandin Dardan wrote:
> >
> > > Friends,
> > >
> > > I've been a bit confused lately ... How can the French Darby Bible
> > > Translation not be in the Public Domain? It was published first in
> > > the 1800's--he also translated into German and English, those
> > > translations are already online ...
> > >
> > > -Kostandin
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

Regards, Trevor

<>< Re: deemed!