Jason Turner wrote:
Since I cannot use the Sword API as it stands,
I was considering reimplementing a subset of it in .NET, and then building
the UI on top of that. Of course releasing the whole thing under the GPL.
I have a technical question: can .NET and GPL be mixed Is'nt
Microsoft bec
I'm sorry, i mixed up E-Sword with Sword :P... Now i understand the
"Open Source" thing :P
___
sword-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Don A. Elbourne Jr. wrote:
The Sword Project is mentioned on http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/
today. Dean wrote a blurb about e-sword and erroneously labeled it as "Open
Source." He corrected the mistake and now has a link to the Crosswire.org
site. His blog has a wide readership and hopeful
The quotes don't need to be whole verses. You can't copyright individual
words, but a concordance contains every word (or at least far beyond fair
use coverage). Whether they explicitly state the context or not (by
quoting the whole verse, e.g.) context is easily reconstructed.
They rarely c
Matthew Donadio wrote:
Joel Mawhorter wrote:
While the topics of copyrights and derivative works are fresh on everyone's
mind I thought I would ask a question. Does anyone know what the U.S. laws
are regarding producing a derative work based on a copyrighted work? For
example, could I create a
Chris Little wrote:
A concordance is the quotation of an entire work. It doesn't matter how
you re-order it or in what manner you change the text, it is still
derived.
I think the examples were intended to show the *spirit* of the law. They
were not intended to be an exhaustive list but a *re
Chris Little wrote:
According to the US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101: A ''derivative
work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a
translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion
picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abrid
I agree with that philosophy, but it was suggested by another that
there should be no philosophies stopping the addition of features that
give users power. That opinion was stated unconditionally. I am just
pointing out that we need philosophies that set some limits. As I said
before I really
Jerry Hastings wrote:
At 12:32 AM 1/15/2003 -0800, Daniel Russell wrote:
Number one rule in software:
Power to the user is more valuable than any philosophy that he
programmers may artificially impose on the project
This is another way in which users are not all the same, and you need
Number one rule in software:
Power to the user is more valuable than any philosophy that he
programmers may artificially impose on the project.
Here i use the word "artificially" in the sense that the philosophy is
contrived' as opposed to being a natural restriction, under whatever
rationale.
Jerry:
-- i'll make no further comment on this thread. Patrick and i have taken
the issue off the list. I think (hope) it's just a friendly conversation
about ideas. :)
John Gardner wrote:
I too believe in an in errant scripture. And that I truly have the word of
God. At the same time, I don't think we can know which "original" text is
the absolute correct one ( 1:1 word correspondence with the original letter
penned by by the original authors). Or the transla
Patrick Narkinsky wrote:
Does this mean I should run off in a huff because I don't like the KJV? No
... I just let them do their thing and I do my own. If you produce a module
that doesn't have vowel points, I'm SURE you could put it on your own
website, and I imagine that Crosswire would put it
Leon Brooks wrote:
On Thursday 05 December 2002 01:41 pm, Daniel Russell wrote:
Regardless of whether or not that tool is deemed necessary from a
*religious* point of view, include it if nothing else than for the sake
of scholastic authenticity.
You yourself may not use the tool, but
Let's not make this into a religious argument. This is a very weak basis
for deciding what to allow or block in what should be a great study
tool, for all parties involved. Only insecurity in the textual
traditions would make one argue that it is wrong to ask for tools to
study the exact origin
I meant: Show me a contradiction in without-vowels/accents-Bible, I meant (in any two readings of any two verses).
Aren't you a relative of Bertran Rassel, a logician and a famous atheist?
Well, the time to stop the discussion, which I haven't intented to begin when the software (for both sides
Junkle for junkle: "Don't divide truth; take it all as a whole"...
I'm am interested in any example of anybody who would get a false sentence from Bible by substituting another vowels/accents as approptiate or redividing Greek words (namely proven to be false, with no know proof to be true is no
I failed to mention that the Hebrews did in fact occassionally separate
words with a point or stroke, like the Phonecians and Moabites (whose
languages' alphabets were almost identical to old Hebrew). These points
must not have been regularly used in the original text however, since
the Septuag
1. I never have heard about different word break variant in Hebrew Bible. The
Original is with word breaks. Not sure whether it was intention of God that we
would rearrange the given by Him word breaks, however one should try and check
whether the resulting texts are meaningless and not false.
There's nothing wrong with letting people read the scripture without the
vowel marks or accents. If that's how the scripture was written, then a
person should certainly be able to read it. Otherwise, you are
essentially forcing that person to ONLY see the second-hand scripture
with textual crit
20 matches
Mail list logo
