<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 03/07/2012 04:53 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5Z283+aQvF-tRWk7fM_yArBXvULHSeCfdXL_jP=jAqTA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>... I'm suggesting copyright is the wrong tool to use to
enforce such claims, since I can't see that it will actually
target the one responsible for the wrong. I agree quality
control is a great thing to have. I disagree that
wide-ranging and not readily enforceable copyright claims will
achieve it.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You are free to disagree about copyright being useful to ensure
non-corruption of the text, but the copyright owners are also free
to disregard your objection and act contrary to your wishes, anyway.
I'm not the copyright owner. I'm one of the world's greatest
advocates of copyright-free Bibles and senior editor of the World
English Bible. I'm also in the position of asking for copyright
permission and dealing with copyright owners' concerns. The #1
reason they give me for copyrighting Bibles is that they want some
way to protect the text from corruption. Arguments to the contrary
are futile. You will be assimilated. OK, maybe not assimilated, but
ignored or disagreed with. At least that is what kind of a response
I usually get. I'm just trying to preserve the fragile permissions I
have gotten.<br>
<br>
Regardless of your feelings about copyrights and Bibles, we have a
higher reason to not want to corrupt or mis-display Bible texts,
anyway, so the copyright argument is secondary, anyway.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5Z283+aQvF-tRWk7fM_yArBXvULHSeCfdXL_jP=jAqTA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I understand the limitations of imperfect human programmers.
What I expect is that:<br>
<ul>
<li>Each part of the whole Bible study software system
from translation to module creation to back end
development to front end display is carefully designed
to correctly handle Bible texts without corruption.</li>
<li>Reasonable care is taken by everyone involved to
ensure that the implementations are correct.</li>
<li>Reasonable testing is done.</li>
<li>High priority is given to correcting any problems that
result in corruption of the text.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is not unreasonable, is it?<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>No, I agree with you. However, my objection is that that
is not what a copyright based requirement seemed to be saying.<br>
<br>
Two other things that occurred to me:<br>
1. If your module uses a versification other than KJV, BPBible
won't support it right now. Other frontends may also not
support it. That will not show all the text of the module.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is a problem, for sure. It turns out that pure KJV
versification is really rare. I guess I need to build a test into my
software to check that, and give up on converting to Sword format if
it isn't a proper subset of the KJV versification. That rules out
the World English Bible as well as most of the minority-language
Scriptures I'm working on.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5Z283+aQvF-tRWk7fM_yArBXvULHSeCfdXL_jP=jAqTA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>2. If your module used a RtoL script, BPBible didn't
support it until 0.5 late last year. Other frontends may also
not support it. That may not show all the text of the module
accurately.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I haven't gotten any RtoL scripts to convert, yet, but it is just a
matter of time...<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5Z283+aQvF-tRWk7fM_yArBXvULHSeCfdXL_jP=jAqTA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
In both of these cases, I would argue that BPBible was
actually behaving reasonably in the presence of technical
limitations. While there exists a large subset of modules
which are supported and supported well by BPBible, it is a
useful presence. The idea of stopping the text being
available in other frontends because of BPBible limitations
seems very suspect to me.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Is there any way we can tag a module as being of a version that
requires support for alternate versification and/or support for RtoL
scripts? Then only front ends with that capability could display it,
and we wouldn't have to withhold the module from the front ends that
don't.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>