[sword-devel] Re: Re: Re: Offer help (portuguese module?)
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
leandro at dutra.fastmail.fm
Sun May 28 17:16:45 MST 2006
Chris Little or any other mature adult with responsibility
here, please intervene or I will have to take this to IBB, I can’t
just keep defending the integrity of this text alone anymore.
On Wed, 03 May 2006 12:01:52 +0200, Sergio Queiroz wrote:
>> Em Tue, 02 May 2006 11:23:44 +0200, Sergio Queiroz escreveu:
>>> Indeed, the PorAA has some problems […] 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).
You can’t dismiss the facts I brought to table as my personal
opinion. That is just not honest.
>> Please stop spreading misinformation. Just compare the PorAA with
>> the VersÃ£o Revisada.
> This means nothing, as they come from the same translation.
Fix all the misspellings in PorAA and you have Revisada. They
do not come from the same translation: they *are* the same
translation. Can’t you see the difference? Why do you insist?
You still refuse to do your homework. If you continue that I
really will have to report your misinformation to IBB. I am looking
for a job and can’t police the list to counter every time you
misinform well-meaning people.
>>> 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
>> More misinformation. All we know is the website it comes from
>> (UnBounded Bible if memory doesnât fail me), and then the siteâs
>> administrators never answered requests for clarification.
> Read the message by Chris Little here
You misread it. Let’s go over it:
¶ 1, Chris says he does not know enough Portuguese, nor history of
Portuguese Bibles, to know each of us is correct.
¶ 2, he says he know where Crosswire got PorAA and the source says it
is OK. But he does not tell us which is the source, nor how the
source justifies it being OK.
¶ 3, he misunderstands my work by saying I provided a module by IBB,
while all I did was to take PorAA and fix it — I correct him in the my
followup message. It only happens that a fixed PorAA equates the
¶ 4, he asks about progress with IBB, which wasn’t forthcoming them,
but on which I since reported. And then he asks how can I prove PorAA
is a corrupted Revisada, which I answered in the followup message.
That he never answered I take to be confirmation of my point.
> 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.
What really fazes me is your insisting PorAA is not Revisada
when you never compared them.
That you claim they could be almost the same by being from the
same public domain sources shows your problems quite nicely. First,
they are not almost the same: they are the same, only that PorAA has
misspellings and misses some text; second, if there was a public
domain source so near Revisada as to make any other minor revision of
it easy to mistake for Revisada, Revisada’s copy right wouldn’t be
valid at all.
>>> 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.
>> SÃ©rgio, 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 really have to defer this to arbitration. Will Chris Little
please come up and settle this?
>> I didnât âupdate the text to reflect the copyrighted work that (I)
>> mention(ed)â. I just fixed typos and missing text. Do a diff
> We cannot adding "missing text" based on a copyrighted version and keep
> the module free.
The module was never free, it was always infringing. Text was
not added, but restored.
>> So you havenât 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
> Show us them, and we will fix based on a public domain source.
Sorry, it is your text to diff my module against PorAA and see
the fixes. If you fix based on a public domain source, you will be
corrupting Revisada even further, and I fear I will have to report you
>>> So, I think that you can use the PorAA without fears of having a
>>> corrupted version.
>> Problem is, you âthinkâ too much but never check the facts.
> That is also your personal opinion.
No, that is the pattern you have estabilished in quite some
time of participation here.
>> If you could be bothered to write a shell script to fix the errors
>> you see, how come you canât 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.
This is nonsense.
If you compare PorAA to my module, or to any other Revisada,
all you will see is fixes and restored text.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA +55 (11) 5685 2219
http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +55 (11) 9406 7191
mailto:leandro at dutra.fastmail.fm
xmpp:leandrod at jabber.org BRASIL
More information about the sword-devel