use Perl

• Bible copyright (Score:2)

  by jdavidb (1361)

  I hate situations like this. Copyright on the Bible was controversial the first time it happened (some time around 1901, with the American Standard Version). Somewhere along the line, we rolled over and accepted it.

  Then I grew up and started questioning everything, and decided I couldn't agree with that policy. I follow it, because it is the law, though if a soul hangs in the balance, I'm going to flagrantly disregard it, and with pleasure. (Of course, I don't agree with copyright at all, any more.)

  --
  J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
  • Re:Bible copyright (Score:1)

    by rjbs (4671)

    Heh, thanks. Actually, the guy has said he'll switch to another translation soon, if he has to... which he probably will.
    
    Dear USCCB: Thanks for the bushel. It hides that lantern really well.

    --
    rjbs
    • Re:Bible copyright (Score:2)

      by jdavidb (1361)

      Heh. I like that comment. :)

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
  • Re:Bible copyright (Score:2)

    by pudge (1)

    The people who make the NASB are constantly trying to put out the best version of the Bible they can, in many languages. That requires money. Without the royalties, they will have not enough to do the work they want to do.
    
    If there were not many good and freely available version of the Bible, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. Yes, it's annoying, but I have no problem with it.
    
• NIV? (Score:2)

  by geoff (2013)

  I guess you're interested in a catholic bible. but if any translation will do, it looks as though despite the standard copyright the NIV folks grok the net [ibs.org] as a distribution medium pretty well. they even already have an rss feed [ibs.org].
  • Re:NIV? (Score:1)

    by sigzero (5768)

    While I am not a proponent of "there is only one version" of the Bible I do believe that a believer should be careful on the translation he or she uses. The NIV is good for getting a good idea about what is being said because it is a paraphrase but the KJV, NKJV or NASB are closer to the original manuscripts.

    YMMV
• It could be worse! (Score:2)

  by yudel (1014)

  Imagine if the current copyright term of life of author + 70 years was fully retroactive. Then we could all litigate whether Moses or God was the Author....
  • Re:It could be worse! (Score:2)

    by jdavidb (1361)

    Yes, but since God died on a cross in 33 A.D., we might have a case. :)

    --
    J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
    • Re:It could be worse! (Score:1)

      by sigzero (5768)

      Did he? Then who raised him from the dead? ;)
      • Re:It could be worse! (Score:1)

        by rjbs (4671)

        cron job

        --
        rjbs
    • Re:It could be worse! (Score:1)

      by AZAudio (6484)

      Does His resurrection change the copyright interpretation?
  • Re:It could be worse! (Score:1)

    by AZAudio (6484)

    Yeah, but since He rose again on the third day, does this change the way we interpret copyright in this particular instance?
    • Re:It could be worse! (Score:2)

      by yudel (1014)

      IANAL, but I've been reading a lot of copyright law lately.
      
      Given the way copyright terms operate, I can imagine a strong case to be made that the author's failure to stay dead until the end of the calendar year would make the death irrelevant for copyright purposes.