Hey guys. A few quick comments:
Chris Little is the official pumpkin holder of SWORD modules.
I believe Chris requires from module submitters the source and any
scripts necessary for preprocessing the source to prepare it for
importing cleanly with one of our import tools. I'm fairly certain he
does not accept module-only submissions.
For reference, we often keep sources used in generating sword modules.
For anyone with server access the official locations for these sources
are at ~pubmods/source and ~betamods/source. There is not much in these
locations, but this is where stuff should reside. I believe more often,
developers (including myself) keeps things in their home directory and
forget to post our sources to these locations.
DM Smith correctly stated that CrossWire does not desire to be a text
source authority-- for the most part. CCEL, for example, is a capable
organization which has this as their primary goal, and CrossWire desires
to help them maintain source documents. Thus, when corrections to
modules are submitted to us, we usually refer people to the source
authority for the text of interest.
Hope this is helpful.
-Troy.
Daniel Blake wrote:
> 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: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
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
