> Em Tue, 02 May 2006 11:23:44 +0200, Sergio Queiroz escreveu: > >> Indeed, the PorAA has some problems with strange characters at each >> verse ending and with some accents, like the "Ã ". But that it is a >> corrupted copy of a copyrighted work is the personal opinion of >> Leandro Dutra. > > No, it is not.
Yes It is (I will not extend this discussion). > > >> It is normal that you cannot find any bible in print with the exact >> text of this version, as the brazilian bible editors have changed a >> bit the translation over the years to ameliorate it and also to have >> copyright rights over the new text (and in this way preserve their >> commercial interests). > > Please stop spreading misinformation. Just compare the PorAA with > the Versão Revisada. This means nothing, as they come from the same translation. > > >> If you look at the history of this list, you will see a message (I >> think that by Chris Little) where he affirms that Crosswire Society >> knows where this version traces to, and that it has no copyright >> problems. > > More misinformation. All we know is the website it comes from > (UnBounded Bible if memory doesnât fail me), and then the siteâs > administrators never answered requests for clarification. Read the message by Chris Little here http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2005-June/022350.html > > >> Notice that the translation by Joao Ferreira de Almeida is very old >> (dates from the XVII century--for the new testament at least), so it >> has multiple revisions by different bodies, some free of copyright, >> some others not. > > So what? So you say that it is the version by the IBB when it is not. They may be almost the same as they came from the same public domain sources. > > >> The modifications of Leandro could not be accepted because he has >> not only solved the technical problems of the module, he has also >> updated the text to reflect the copyrighted work that he >> mentions. So it could no longer be distributed without the >> authorization of the copyright holders of that version. > > Sérgio, it is quite interesting how you phantasize the past to fit > your world view. Problem is, it amounts to a lie, if unintentional. Refer back to the aforementioned message. > > I didnât âupdate the text to reflect the copyrighted work that (I) > mention(ed)â. I just fixed typos and missing text. Do a diff > yourself. We cannot adding "missing text" based on a copyrighted version and keep the module free. > > >> Saying that this version is corrupted is a very far cry. I use it >> frequently in a small group study group, where we are from different >> nationalities, and we normally use the PorAA, the King James >> (english) and the Louis Segond (french) at the same time, to study >> the same text. I've never found a "corruption" in the PorAA text >> (I'm brazilian but also fluent in english and french). In fact, it >> is often almost the same as the King James version. > > So you havenât read enough. There are quite some missing passages, > sometimes starting or finishing at mid-sentence or even truncating > words. Even passing PorAA thru a spellchecker will show you corrupted > passages. Show us them, and we will fix based on a public domain source. > >> So, I think that you can use the PorAA without fears of having a >> corrupted >> version. > > Problem is, you âthinkâ too much but never check the facts. That is also your personal opinion. > > >> And it is much better to have a free portuguese module with some >> technical problems than no portuguese module at all. > > Not âsome technical problemsâ only. Real missing text, real garbled > text. Again, show us them, and we will fix based on a public domain source. > > >> I have at home a small shell script that I have used to correct the >> problems with the "à " and the "Ã" as well as the strange characters >> at the end of verses > > If you could be bothered to write a shell script to fix the errors > you see, how come you canât be bothered to diff it against my files > and see for yourself PorAA is actually a corrupted Revisada? It is not worth the effort to compare with a copyrighted work, as we cannot adopt the differences. And comparing with other Almeida will just show that they are "Almeidas". You can compare with the Almeida Corrigida e Fiel, by the Trinitarian Bible Society, if you want to. Maybe you can conclude we also have a "corrupted Almeida Corrigida e Fiel" too. > > Please please please stop this nonsense! Again, in your opinion. _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
