Thanks for the comments Troy. I have a better understanding now. Daniel Blake
Troy A. Griffitts wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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
