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 "à". But that it is a > corrupted copy of a copyrighted work is the personal opinion of > Leandro Dutra.
No, it is not. > 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. > 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. > 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? > 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. 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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? Please please please stop this nonsense! -- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA +55 (11) 5685 2219 http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +55 (11) 9406 7191 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BRASIL _______________________________________________ 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