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 it was way more than simple doubt. The concern was that the module was not the old PD text updated by some friendly person but a ripped off version of a copyrighted text. In absence of a clear evidence telling us who where when updated the text and produced it for us and left - crucially - in the public domain we can not publish a text which is otherwise likely to be nicked from somewhere. > It is a shame that Sword still does not have a due portuguese Bible > module since then... I am in the process of producing a modern language (Iberian Portuguese) module with ++ notes etc. It will be for sale by the publishers but it will be worthwhile buying, I think. I will need a few more months though. > Anyway, I take Aldo's words as mine, and as a brazilian lawyer I can > tell he's right. And as a translation work owned by a publishing house, > it would come into public domain 70 years after it was published. I'm > pretty sure this fact was behind SBB's reasoning on publishing the > updated text of the TB. Provided the original is taken, we could update > the text and use it in Sword. The problem here is that no one seems to own a original in electronic format and no one has gone to the effort of updating it in a way we can use it. I understand there are some moves proofreading scans but I am not sure how far they have progressed. Peter _______________________________________________ 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
