[sword-devel] Re: Re: Offer help (portuguese module?)

Sergio Queiroz srmq at srmq.org
Wed May 3 03:01:52 MST 2006

> 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 doesn’t fail me), and then the site’s
> administrators never answered requests for clarification.

Read the message by Chris Little here

>> 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 didn’t ‘update the text to reflect the copyrighted work that (I)
> mention(ed)’.  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 haven’t 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 ‘think’ 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 ‘some technical problems’ 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 "À" 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 can’t 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.

More information about the sword-devel mailing list