DM Smith wrote: > I have asked about this before, thinking that we should maintain the > inputs we use for module creation. The response was that the module > was sufficient. And in the case of copyrighted material for which > Crosswire has been granted permission to distribute it as a module, > we are not necessarily granted permission to distribute the original. > > The basic thought (that I was told) was that the owner of the source > should be the place from which we get any modifications in the > future. The problem is that some of those places no longer maintain > the original and the originals may not exist anywhere else. Example, > Bible Foundation (i.e. bf.org). > > We do have the "original" input for the KJV, but that is one that is > created and maintained by Crosswire. > Isn't this similar to not keeping the Dead Sea Scrolls, */textus/* receptus </search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=textus+receptus&spell=1> and other "original" documentation because we have the KJV, NKJV and other newer translations? I see a very serious problem with this thinking. If the original texts aren't kept how can anyone be certain, or prove, that our versions aren't corrupt or changed? I understand and agree with the reasoning behind getting "any modifications" from the original source. But I would highly suggest keeping any original source texts (exact, unmodified version) used in making Sword modules as proofing materials and as proof we haven't corrupted/modified the original text.
Daniel Blake _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
