Thanks Peter, I'm not so interested in the motives of those contributing the modules or the process by which they are vetted. I wasn't specifically asking from a Crosswire repo perspective and I have no doubt these go through a careful filter process. Rather I'm more interesting in finding out how I might validate the pedigree of a translation not currently in the main repo, whose text is (nearly) publicly available (meaning readily accessible).
I'd be doing the one taking the text, adding mark-up into OSIS, and I know my own motivation. I don't know how to determine if there are copyright encumbrances on the translation, and wouldn't necessarily be submitting the outcome to Crosswire. So, though I suspect there are no copyright encumbrance because of the age of the translation, I would still like to be sure. I'd thus like to figure out how to trace this back for myself. ~A On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Peter von Kaehne <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30/07/12 17:10, Andrew Thule wrote: >> Troy does this mean that with respect to the modules you host, you go >> through the rigamarole of tracing back to source the copyright status >> for the sake of due diligence? > > Yes. We have been caught out, we will get caught out again, no doubt, > but we will always err on the side of caution if we do not know exactly > where we are with a text. > >> I'd like to know more about establishing a text's >> pedigree. > > There are three potential problems with a text which should be public > domain. > > 1) The text is not the text it claims to be. Not unusual. A language X > has an old bible translation which is definitely PD. We get a text, > stating this is the old translation and then it transpires that it is in > fact a much newer translation. Usually this is a mistake, occasionally > it is malice. > > 2) The text is the text we think it is, but someone has edited/updated > it. This is very hard sometimes as the edits might be subtle and not > easily recognisable. They might even be deliberately hidden in order to > establish a spurious copyright. > > 3) The text is the text we think it is, but it has been mutilated by > poor copying, multiple format transformations, KJVifying and > de-KJVifying in terms of versification, ripping out bits which are not > deemed to be canonical enough by whoever handled it before etc etc. > > As a solution to above - We tend not to accept texts from just about > everyone, but are very careful. If a text is PD, we do not accept in > general a module, but ask for a link back to a authorative website where > the text is hosted. We do ask questions who copied from whom and we > generally whittle things down fast. > > We certainly do not accept texts (after poor experiences) from > non-CrossWire bible software projects. > > When running our import routines, missing verses and odd versifications > become obvious usually and this again highlights poor texts. There are > other signs of poor text quality. > > Most of the texts we have imported over the last 3-4 years are directly > from publishers (Bible societies etc) and others are from bona fide and > often long established transcription projects. > > Hope this makes sense. > > Peter >> >> ~A >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] >> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel >> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
