DArio Matos wrote:
> **BTW, my claim on 70 years is based upon the brazilian copyright law
> in force, would really need to check the law in force back in 1917.
And every change of the law since. Particularly copyright law has been
in many countries subject to arbitrary and often retroactive chan
BTW, my claim on 70 years is based upon the brazilian copyright law in
force, would really need to check the law in force back in 1917.
However, the discussion on Wikisource (in which I just registered) goes
on the same direction, based on the claim posted in Wikipedia that the
original text went
DArio Matos wrote:
> Hehe, this brings back memories from 2004, when I was defending the old
> Almeida Atualizada module and Leandro, defending such module was a
> corrupt version of a registered translation. The mere doubt about its
> status was enough to take the module offline, though.
I think
I guess it is better to have Aldo's email duly translated from portuguese, so
more people are involved into this:
"Hi, Leandro. I've read your contact with Mr. Teixeira from SBB. SBB cannot
hold the rights from original 1917 TB, but only from the text they have updated
themselves. Any person ca
Em Wed, 31 May 2006 10:30:09 -0300, DArio Matos escreveu:
> So, "Versão Brasileira" portuguese Bible is already in public domain;
> also, as it is already digitalized at Bíblia Online 3.0 Software; there
> is no problem taking it from there, once someone provides a proofread from
> a printed editi
n to convert
their own version of Almeida's translation to a Sword
Module?
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:24:16 -0700
From: Chris Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Permission requested on
PorAA
To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
I'm not really clear what you're saying here. Are you saying you've
asked permission to distribute "PorAA" or some other text? Are you
saying that the "PorAA" text from Unbound Bible is still under some
copyright or has other licensing hinderances?
Also, is the version of the text that you have