<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHxvOVJBL8qzpykFRqdKUKirbonWYiuA_V6bUUVjeGUYKppbTA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:34 PM Peter von Kaehne
<<a href="mailto:refdoc@gmx.net" moz-do-not-send="true">refdoc@gmx.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I would actively oppose
this proposal. <br>
Leaving aside a few popular but otherwise irrelevant texts
(NIV etc)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why do you say "irrelevant", when there are regular
requests from people - both like Tobais as well as people
more meekly asking in other fora - for exactly that module
(and others; NRSV is of keen interest to me along with the
Jerusalem/New Jerusalem Bibles and a UBS 5th ed complete
with apparatus). What is "irrelevant" about a module that
users are requesting?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--Greg<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with Greg, that relevance is really defined by what users
are requesting. I guess it may be a discussion about values also.<br>
I fully support the wish to get bible translations out to any
people for free, if possible. That does not have to turn into a
constraint, though.<br>
Especially in the western world, most Christians I know use modern
(non-free) translations for their personal bible study. And that's
what should be possible with open source software as well!<br>
</p>
<p>With the availability of non-free bible translations, the Sword
ecosystem would</p>
<p>a) gain many more users<br>
b) with more users also attract more developers<br>
c) with more developers also gain interesting new features and
improvements in open source bible software<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Tobias<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>