[sword-devel] Re: Re: Offer help (portuguese module?)
srmq at srmq.org
Wed May 3 07:57:44 MST 2006
> I must agree with Leandro that the module is misnamed. I had access
> to a paper copy of Almeida Atualizada and it is NOT the same. Even if
> Unbound guys say it is OK to distribute, they must provide where they
> got it from. Besides, even if it is the Almeida Atualizada, that
> version is NOT Public Domain.
If "Almeida Atualizada" (which means "updated Almeida") is not a
registered trademark, anyone can update the Almeida text and call it as
>> This means nothing, as they come from the same translation.
> This has some meaning. It is theoretically possible that two versions
> from the same source end up exactly the same, but can you believe
> that? It is almost like believing evolution brought us here... And
> not even evolutionists would agree on that.
We cannot say anything if we don't know the changes that the IBB has made
to the text.
If the IBB thinks the module has copied their copyrighted work, it is up
to them to raise the legal problems. We have no legal standing on this.
They should know the existence of this module for a long time (it appears
to me that it is also the same text that is available at the popular site
http://www.biblegateway.com , also marked as public domain), Luciano Dutra
has already talked to them about this in the past. If they never a made
copyright infrigement claim, it is also an evidence that the module is
>> Read the message by Chris Little here
> I have read the Chris Little's message and the rest of the tread and
> he doesn't say nothing against Leandro's position. I think everyone
> is just washing hands. I know the President of the Portuguese Bible
> Society personally and I will contact him to know if I can evaluate
> the copies and, if needed, obtain the necessary permission. (If they
> don't hold the copyright they can help me to contact with the holder.
"We know where we got the currently available PorAA module and we know
that its source says it is okay to distribute" seems clear enough to me. I
have no reasons to doubt his affirmation.
> Can I suggest that we start writing to the list every time we
> encounter errors?
Can I suggest that we write a summary of errors?
> It is true that we cannot accept the differences if they come from a
> copyrighted work, but it seams that NO ONE has access to the Public
> Domain source. The only ones that should be able to do that are the
> Unbound guys and they don't know or don't bother.
As I said, I see no reasons of doubting that the PorAA itself is a public
> But, again I say, the module is missnamed. I can give you the opinion
> of a scholar on that: my greek's professor at the theological
> seminar. He has been in several groups of translators for several
> portuguese bible versions and he told me that the version I have IS
> NOT Atualizada. If you compare several Almeida modified Bibles you
> will conclude the same that I did: you cannot read through without
> encountering differences at least in 1/3 of the verses.
He is referring to a specific version that is called "Atualizada". This is
a very generic term, that could be used by anyone, if not trademarked. If
we think this could generate confusion, then we could advocate a name
change. Personally, I don't see that calling the module "Almeida
Atualizada" means that it is the same text of a version that used that
name in the past.
More information about the sword-devel