Salam, On Wednesday 11 October 2006 09:36 am, Meor Ridzuan Meor Yahaya wrote:
> Before I state my opinion on the subject, lets take an anology. Let's > take the Great Wall of China. I think a car is more practical. You have the car, a person who has a photograph of the car and another person who makes a painting of the car. Remember, a license is an authorization to use something. None of those people are using -- or will use -- the car and none of the viewers of the photograph or the painting will use the car. But what happens when the photographer takes a picture of the artist's painting and puts his name on the photograph? That's where we should look. But consider the Quran, what can you possibly do with the Quran that comes with a license and how will that usage differ from the unlicensed version? In your analogy (which we have trimmed down from the Great Wall to a car to show how a "thing" is being used) there's a difference between the car and its picture, or the wall and its picture. But what will be the difference in usage between the unlicensed and a licensed version of the Quran? I see no difference. All would be studied, recited, searched (we also do manual searches in a hardcopy of the Quran), and so on > There can be many types/medium of representation. The problem we have > is to maintain it's integrity, and to have a correct license is a > start (it won't solve all of the problem) It wont solve any problem at all. A license will not stop a malicious person from adding, deleting, or modifying the Quran if he or she wants to. But a message digest would tell us if something like that ever happens even if it is a space (deleted, inserted, or substituted). A license expects a person with a good will on the other side of the agreement; people who want to malign a certain piece of work usually do not have a good will to respect the license. Salam, Abdalla Alothman _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
