I've been giving a lot of thought to our current crisis regarding copyrights and licensing. I think I have a solution to the problem: Open Scriptures can be an intermediary between application developers and content owners. The idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon which developers can build applications of scripture while at the same time give content owners a distribution channel and revenue stream.
Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a low barrier of entry as being a huge need for developers. He noted that large content owners generally do not grant licenses to independent developers who want to experiment with an idea or create an innovative application using scriptural data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible Society if I could have a license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request was denied (thus when I discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started to feel a little nervious). Later I learned (this last week) that it is a policy of their organization to not give their texts to open source projects. Why? Because they must generate revenue from the sale of the texts in order to support their important work. I totally understand and affirm their decision. They have a right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
I also firmly believe that developers need to be able to have access to content owners' all-important data. We need "Raw Data Now!" as Tim Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on openscriptures.org). We need access to this raw data so that compelling new applications can be built and so that we can build upon the data that each other has. Aside from the NET Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners rarely grant licenses to individuals... however, what if they granted licenses to Open Scriptures which served as a proxy for developers? If all the data from all of the content owners were integrated into a Linked Data web of scriptural information, and if this Linked Data were stored in the Open Scriptures' infrastructure, developers could then build applications on top of an Open Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage of the licenses that have already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures as a cross between Google's AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures would host scriptural applications (like AppEngine) that could take advantage of the vast amount of interlinked scriptural data (as with Facebook's social data). Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that utilize non-free data would either be supported by donations, advertisements, or subscriptions. Open Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the application developer wouldn't have to worry about licensing or payments, and the content owners wouldn't have to bother with granting thousands of individual licenses or figuring out how to distribute their content and generate revenue. Open Scriptures would facilitate application development, content licensing, and revenue generation.
With the raw data available and a well-designed API, a framework would be in place which would allow thousands of developers to work independently on applications that are interesting to them. They can also work together to create the next generation of apps powered by Linked Data. Hence having a single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would not need to be the thrust of the project, but rather creating the underlying structure that would power such applications.
The more I think about this, the more I think it is the best solution to the copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of entry for application developers, it allows for all of the scriptural data to be integrated into Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue generation for content owners. Open source and closed content need not be diametrically opposed. Developers and content owners need each other. Open Scriptures can bring the two together.
What do you think? These ideas are going to form a main thrust of my presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
One thing though, I'd bet that the content providers won't be willing to
work with Open Scriptures until it's been proved successful. If they're not
willing to work with the unproven open source application project I'd be
surprised if they're going to go for the unproven open source platform
project (even one which has their best interests at heart).
Basically what I'm saying is that we need to build something that works (and
hopefully rocks) before we're going to get buy-in.
To that end we still need content. There's still tons of it in the public
domain or usable license right? Maybe we should start compiling what content
we can use. I am not a biblical scholar (or anything close to it...only just
learned what the NA27/UBS4 were [thank you wikipedia!]) so won't be much
help there.
-Tim
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I've been giving a lot of thought to our current crisis regarding
> copyrights and licensing. I think I have a solution to the problem: Open
> Scriptures can be an intermediary between application developers and content
> owners. The idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon which
> developers can build applications of scripture while at the same time give
> content owners a distribution channel and revenue stream.
> Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a low barrier of entry as
> being a huge need for developers. He noted that large content owners
> generally do not grant licenses to independent developers who want to
> experiment with an idea or create an innovative application using scriptural
> data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible Society if I could have a
> license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request was denied (thus when I
> discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started to feel a little nervious).
> Later I learned (this last week) that it is a policy of their organization
> to not give their texts to open source projects. Why? Because they must
> generate revenue from the sale of the texts in order to support their
> important work. I totally understand and affirm their decision. They have a
> right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> I also firmly believe that developers need to be able to have access to
> content owners' all-important data. We need "Raw Data Now!" as Tim
> Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on openscriptures.org). We need
> access to this raw data so that compelling new applications can be built and
> so that we can build upon the data that each other has. Aside from the NET
> Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners rarely grant licenses to
> individuals... however, what if they granted licenses to Open Scriptures
> which served as a proxy for developers? If all the data from all of the
> content owners were integrated into a Linked Data web of scriptural
> information, and if this Linked Data were stored in the Open Scriptures'
> infrastructure, developers could then build applications on top of an Open
> Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage of the licenses that have
> already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures as a cross between Google's
> AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures would host scriptural
> applications (like AppEngine) that could take advantage of the vast amount
> of interlinked scriptural data (as with Facebook's social data).
> Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that utilize non-free data would
> either be supported by donations, advertisements, or subscriptions. Open
> Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the application developer
> wouldn't have to worry about licensing or payments, and the content owners
> wouldn't have to bother with granting thousands of individual licenses or
> figuring out how to distribute their content and generate revenue. Open
> Scriptures would facilitate application development, content licensing, and
> revenue generation.
> With the raw data available and a well-designed API, a framework would be
> in place which would allow thousands of developers to work independently on
> applications that are interesting to them. They can also work together to
> create the next generation of apps powered by Linked Data. Hence having a
> single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would not need to be the thrust of the
> project, but rather creating the underlying structure that would power such
> applications.
> The more I think about this, the more I think it is the best solution to
> the copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of entry for application
> developers, it allows for all of the scriptural data to be integrated into
> Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue generation for content
> owners. Open source and closed content need not be diametrically opposed.
> Developers and content owners need each other. Open Scriptures can bring the
> two together.
> What do you think? These ideas are going to form a main thrust of my
> presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
I like what you are suggesting. The only problem is that the license
you are talking about isn't really open. Open Scriptures would have a
license through a partnership with UBS, but that license would not be
open, at least as I understand your proposal. This could mean that
copyright issues could plague your app database.
Another possibility, perhaps parallel to the one you suggest, is to
create own own eclectic Greek text. You mentioned the NET bible, and
there are other crowd-sourced "translation" projects out there. Why
not create a wiki-style crowd-sourced Greek Text project where
scholars can contribute to compiled critical open-sourced text of the
Greek New Testament. Greek manuscripts available on the net could be
linked to and discussed, etc. This would require a good deal of good
programming, since a standard wiki would probably not be the best, but
there is a precedent: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Wiki_Bible
I'd be happy to contribute what I can!
On Mar 21, 1:28 am, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been giving a lot of thought to our current crisis regarding copyrights
> and licensing. I think I have a solution to the problem: Open Scriptures can
> be an intermediary between application developers and content owners. The
> idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon which developers can build
> applications of scripture while at the same time give content owners a
> distribution channel and revenue stream.
> Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a low barrier of entry as
> being a huge need for developers. He noted that large content owners
> generally do not grant licenses to independent developers who want to
> experiment with an idea or create an innovative application using scriptural
> data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible Society if I could have a
> license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request was denied (thus when I
> discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started to feel a little nervious).
> Later I learned (this last week) that it is a policy of their organization
> to not give their texts to open source projects. Why? Because they must
> generate revenue from the sale of the texts in order to support their
> important work. I totally understand and affirm their decision. They have a
> right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> I also firmly believe that developers need to be able to have access to
> content owners' all-important data. We need "Raw Data Now!" as Tim
> Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on openscriptures.org). We need
> access to this raw data so that compelling new applications can be built and
> so that we can build upon the data that each other has. Aside from the NET
> Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners rarely grant licenses to
> individuals... however, what if they granted licenses to Open Scriptures
> which served as a proxy for developers? If all the data from all of the
> content owners were integrated into a Linked Data web of scriptural
> information, and if this Linked Data were stored in the Open Scriptures'
> infrastructure, developers could then build applications on top of an Open
> Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage of the licenses that have
> already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures as a cross between Google's
> AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures would host scriptural
> applications (like AppEngine) that could take advantage of the vast amount
> of interlinked scriptural data (as with Facebook's social data).
> Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that utilize non-free data would
> either be supported by donations, advertisements, or subscriptions. Open
> Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the application developer
> wouldn't have to worry about licensing or payments, and the content owners
> wouldn't have to bother with granting thousands of individual licenses or
> figuring out how to distribute their content and generate revenue. Open
> Scriptures would facilitate application development, content licensing, and
> revenue generation.
> With the raw data available and a well-designed API, a framework would be in
> place which would allow thousands of developers to work independently on
> applications that are interesting to them. They can also work together to
> create the next generation of apps powered by Linked Data. Hence having a
> single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would not need to be the thrust of the
> project, but rather creating the underlying structure that would power such
> applications.
> The more I think about this, the more I think it is the best solution to the
> copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of entry for application
> developers, it allows for all of the scriptural data to be integrated into
> Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue generation for content
> owners. Open source and closed content need not be diametrically opposed.
> Developers and content owners need each other. Open Scriptures can bring the
> two together.
> What do you think? These ideas are going to form a main thrust of my
> presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
OK, I'm getting a little excited about this. It would be a real boon
to NT studies and would be perfect for something like Open Scriptures.
We could start with something like Tischendorf to get the ball
rolling. We would need some strict guidelines for editing the text,
and a pretty robust system for the reasons behind the edit, from which
would be derived a kind of critical apparatus. The biggest deficit
here is that we of course do not have access to some of the best
documents online, but other scholars certainly do, and as the project
builds momentum so would scholarly participation.
The beauty of this is that the most problematic parts of Tischendorf
would no doubt be edited first, leaving us with a pretty decent
approximation of the UBS, but open licensed. And, depending on the
success of the project, you would also have open data for the critical
apparatus, which would feed directly into the manuscript comparator,
which would get a lot of nerdy scholars like myself very excited.
On Mar 23, 7:29 am, Tommy <keeneto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like what you are suggesting. The only problem is that the license
> you are talking about isn't really open. Open Scriptures would have a
> license through a partnership with UBS, but that license would not be
> open, at least as I understand your proposal. This could mean that
> copyright issues could plague your app database.
> Another possibility, perhaps parallel to the one you suggest, is to
> create own own eclectic Greek text. You mentioned the NET bible, and
> there are other crowd-sourced "translation" projects out there. Why
> not create a wiki-style crowd-sourced Greek Text project where
> scholars can contribute to compiled critical open-sourced text of the
> Greek New Testament. Greek manuscripts available on the net could be
> linked to and discussed, etc. This would require a good deal of good
> programming, since a standard wiki would probably not be the best, but
> there is a precedent:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Wiki_Bible
> I'd be happy to contribute what I can!
> On Mar 21, 1:28 am, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been giving a lot of thought to our current crisis regarding copyrights
> > and licensing. I think I have a solution to the problem: Open Scriptures can
> > be an intermediary between application developers and content owners. The
> > idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon which developers can build
> > applications of scripture while at the same time give content owners a
> > distribution channel and revenue stream.
> > Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a low barrier of entry as
> > being a huge need for developers. He noted that large content owners
> > generally do not grant licenses to independent developers who want to
> > experiment with an idea or create an innovative application using scriptural
> > data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible Society if I could have a
> > license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request was denied (thus when I
> > discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started to feel a little nervious).
> > Later I learned (this last week) that it is a policy of their organization
> > to not give their texts to open source projects. Why? Because they must
> > generate revenue from the sale of the texts in order to support their
> > important work. I totally understand and affirm their decision. They have a
> > right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> > I also firmly believe that developers need to be able to have access to
> > content owners' all-important data. We need "Raw Data Now!" as Tim
> > Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on openscriptures.org). We need
> > access to this raw data so that compelling new applications can be built and
> > so that we can build upon the data that each other has. Aside from the NET
> > Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners rarely grant licenses to
> > individuals... however, what if they granted licenses to Open Scriptures
> > which served as a proxy for developers? If all the data from all of the
> > content owners were integrated into a Linked Data web of scriptural
> > information, and if this Linked Data were stored in the Open Scriptures'
> > infrastructure, developers could then build applications on top of an Open
> > Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage of the licenses that have
> > already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures as a cross between Google's
> > AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures would host scriptural
> > applications (like AppEngine) that could take advantage of the vast amount
> > of interlinked scriptural data (as with Facebook's social data).
> > Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that utilize non-free data would
> > either be supported by donations, advertisements, or subscriptions. Open
> > Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the application developer
> > wouldn't have to worry about licensing or payments, and the content owners
> > wouldn't have to bother with granting thousands of individual licenses or
> > figuring out how to distribute their content and generate revenue. Open
> > Scriptures would facilitate application development, content licensing, and
> > revenue generation.
> > With the raw data available and a well-designed API, a framework would be in
> > place which would allow thousands of developers to work independently on
> > applications that are interesting to them. They can also work together to
> > create the next generation of apps powered by Linked Data. Hence having a
> > single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would not need to be the thrust of the
> > project, but rather creating the underlying structure that would power such
> > applications.
> > The more I think about this, the more I think it is the best solution to the
> > copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of entry for application
> > developers, it allows for all of the scriptural data to be integrated into
> > Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue generation for content
> > owners. Open source and closed content need not be diametrically opposed.
> > Developers and content owners need each other. Open Scriptures can bring the
> > two together.
> > What do you think? These ideas are going to form a main thrust of my
> > presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
> From: Tommy <keeneto...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> To: "Open Scriptures" <open-scriptures@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 4:29 AM
> I like what you are suggesting. The only problem is that the
> license
> you are talking about isn't really open. Open
> Scriptures would have a
> license through a partnership with UBS, but that license
> would not be
> open, at least as I understand your proposal. This could
> mean that
> copyright issues could plague your app database.
> Another possibility, perhaps parallel to the one you
> suggest, is to
> create own own eclectic Greek text. You mentioned the NET
> bible, and
> there are other crowd-sourced "translation"
> projects out there. Why
> not create a wiki-style crowd-sourced Greek Text project
> where
> scholars can contribute to compiled critical open-sourced
> text of the
> Greek New Testament. Greek manuscripts available on the net
> could be
> linked to and discussed, etc. This would require a good
> deal of good
> programming, since a standard wiki would probably not be
> the best, but
> there is a precedent:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Wiki_Bible
> I'd be happy to contribute what I can!
> On Mar 21, 1:28 am, Weston Ruter
> <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been giving a lot of thought to our current
> crisis regarding copyrights
> > and licensing. I think I have a solution to the
> problem: Open Scriptures can
> > be an intermediary between application developers and
> content owners. The
> > idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon
> which developers can build
> > applications of scripture while at the same time give
> content owners a
> > distribution channel and revenue stream.
> > Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a low
> barrier of entry as
> > being a huge need for developers. He noted that large
> content owners
> > generally do not grant licenses to independent
> developers who want to
> > experiment with an idea or create an innovative
> application using scriptural
> > data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible
> Society if I could have a
> > license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request was
> denied (thus when I
> > discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started to
> feel a little nervious).
> > Later I learned (this last week) that it is a policy
> of their organization
> > to not give their texts to open source projects. Why?
> Because they must
> > generate revenue from the sale of the texts in order
> to support their
> > important work. I totally understand and affirm their
> decision. They have a
> > right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> > I also firmly believe that developers need to be able
> to have access to
> > content owners' all-important data. We need
> "Raw Data Now!" as Tim
> > Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on
> openscriptures.org). We need
> > access to this raw data so that compelling new
> applications can be built and
> > so that we can build upon the data that each other
> has. Aside from the NET
> > Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners rarely
> grant licenses to
> > individuals... however, what if they granted licenses
> to Open Scriptures
> > which served as a proxy for developers? If all the
> data from all of the
> > content owners were integrated into a Linked Data web
> of scriptural
> > information, and if this Linked Data were stored in
> the Open Scriptures'
> > infrastructure, developers could then build
> applications on top of an Open
> > Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage of
> the licenses that have
> > already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures as a
> cross between Google's
> > AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures would
> host scriptural
> > applications (like AppEngine) that could take
> advantage of the vast amount
> > of interlinked scriptural data (as with Facebook's
> social data).
> > Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that utilize
> non-free data would
> > either be supported by donations, advertisements, or
> subscriptions. Open
> > Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the
> application developer
> > wouldn't have to worry about licensing or
> payments, and the content owners
> > wouldn't have to bother with granting thousands of
> individual licenses or
> > figuring out how to distribute their content and
> generate revenue. Open
> > Scriptures would facilitate application development,
> content licensing, and
> > revenue generation.
> > With the raw data available and a well-designed API, a
> framework would be in
> > place which would allow thousands of developers to
> work independently on
> > applications that are interesting to them. They can
> also work together to
> > create the next generation of apps powered by Linked
> Data. Hence having a
> > single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would not
> need to be the thrust of the
> > project, but rather creating the underlying structure
> that would power such
> > applications.
> > The more I think about this, the more I think it is
> the best solution to the
> > copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of entry
> for application
> > developers, it allows for all of the scriptural data
> to be integrated into
> > Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue
> generation for content
> > owners. Open source and closed content need not be
> diametrically opposed.
> > Developers and content owners need each other. Open
> Scriptures can bring the
> > two together.
> > What do you think? These ideas are going to form a
> main thrust of my
> > presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
I have a suggestion for this. A number of Bible software programs already have the capability of comparing two Biblical text, so what if we choose two or three different texts to highly differences right away. Its an instant eclectic text. I don't know if there would be a license/copyright issue still, but potentially, it might be possible (legally speaking) to compare Tischendorf, WH & the NA27/UBS4 and simply select the majority vote readings.
A hundred years ago, this was an incredibly common way of setting a text - its was the original Nestle text did as well as some commentary sets like the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges.
________________________________
From: Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
To: keeneto...@gmail.com
Cc: open-scriptures@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:29:24 AM
Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
Tommy,
I really like that idea. If all points of variation were identified, there could discussion threads on these points. Great Idea!
Darrell
--- On Mon, 3/23/09, Tommy <keeneto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Tommy <keeneto...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> To: "Open Scriptures" <open-scriptures@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 4:29 AM
> I like what you are suggesting. The only problem is that the
> license
> you are talking about isn't really open. Open
> Scriptures would have a
> license through a partnership with UBS, but that license
> would not be
> open, at least as I understand your proposal. This could
> mean that
> copyright issues could plague your app database.
> Another possibility, perhaps parallel to the one you
> suggest, is to
> create own own eclectic Greek text. You mentioned the NET
> bible, and
> there are other crowd-sourced "translation"
> projects out there. Why
> not create a wiki-style crowd-sourced Greek Text project
> where
> scholars can contribute to compiled critical open-sourced
> text of the
> Greek New Testament. Greek manuscripts available on the net
> could be
> linked to and discussed, etc. This would require a good
> deal of good
> programming, since a standard wiki would probably not be
> the best, but
> there is a precedent:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Wiki_Bible
> I'd be happy to contribute what I can!
> On Mar 21, 1:28 am, Weston Ruter
> <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been giving a lot of thought to our current
> crisis regarding copyrights
> > and licensing. I think I have a solution to the
> problem: Open Scriptures can
> > be an intermediary between application developers and
> content owners. The
> > idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon
> which developers can build
> > applications of scripture while at the same time give
> content owners a
> > distribution channel and revenue stream.
> > Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a low
> barrier of entry as
> > being a huge need for developers. He noted that large
> content owners
> > generally do not grant licenses to independent
> developers who want to
> > experiment with an idea or create an innovative
> application using scriptural
> > data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible
> Society if I could have a
> > license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request was
> denied (thus when I
> > discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started to
> feel a little nervious).
> > Later I learned (this last week) that it is a policy
> of their organization
> > to not give their texts to open source projects. Why?
> Because they must
> > generate revenue from the sale of the texts in order
> to support their
> > important work. I totally understand and affirm their
> decision. They have a
> > right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> > I also firmly believe that developers need to be able
> to have access to
> > content owners' all-important data. We need
> "Raw Data Now!" as Tim
> > Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on
> openscriptures.org). We need
> > access to this raw data so that compelling new
> applications can be built and
> > so that we can build upon the data that each other
> has. Aside from the NET
> > Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners rarely
> grant licenses to
> > individuals... however, what if they granted licenses
> to Open Scriptures
> > which served as a proxy for developers? If all the
> data from all of the
> > content owners were integrated into a Linked Data web
> of scriptural
> > information, and if this Linked Data were stored in
> the Open Scriptures'
> > infrastructure, developers could then build
> applications on top of an Open
> > Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage of
> the licenses that have
> > already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures as a
> cross between Google's
> > AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures would
> host scriptural
> > applications (like AppEngine) that could take
> advantage of the vast amount
> > of interlinked scriptural data (as with Facebook's
> social data).
> > Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that utilize
> non-free data would
> > either be supported by donations, advertisements, or
> subscriptions. Open
> > Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the
> application developer
> > wouldn't have to worry about licensing or
> payments, and the content owners
> > wouldn't have to bother with granting thousands of
> individual licenses or
> > figuring out how to distribute their content and
> generate revenue. Open
> > Scriptures would facilitate application development,
> content licensing, and
> > revenue generation.
> > With the raw data available and a well-designed API, a
> framework would be in
> > place which would allow thousands of developers to
> work independently on
> > applications that are interesting to them. They can
> also work together to
> > create the next generation of apps powered by Linked
> Data. Hence having a
> > single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would not
> need to be the thrust of the
> > project, but rather creating the underlying structure
> that would power such
> > applications.
> > The more I think about this, the more I think it is
> the best solution to the
> > copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of entry
> for application
> > developers, it allows for all of the scriptural data
> to be integrated into
> > Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue
> generation for content
> > owners. Open source and closed content need not be
> diametrically opposed.
> > Developers and content owners need each other. Open
> Scriptures can bring the
> > two together.
> > What do you think? These ideas are going to form a
> main thrust of my
> > presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
I like the idea of starting with an old text, and having a very simple
aparatus that shows the decisions made by modern committees. Perhaps
the on-line version would not need to make an in-line decision. (I
don't like going simply going with the majority. Then again, I
certainly do not have what it takes to make a good decision.)
This leads me to ask what exactly is copyrighted? NA/UBS's selection
of the all the variant readings? The aparatus? The {A/B/C/D} system?
Lastly, I think Zhubert's method of making it work was the best I have
seen. It did not require needless clicking to see the exact form of
the word, and thus allowed reading with quick and easy checking when
needed.
Scott
On Mar 23, 11:45 am, Michael Aubrey <mga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have a suggestion for this. A number of Bible software programs already have the capability of comparing two Biblical text, so what if we choose two or three different texts to highly differences right away. Its an instant eclectic text. I don't know if there would be a license/copyright issue still, but potentially, it might be possible (legally speaking) to compare Tischendorf, WH & the NA27/UBS4 and simply select the majority vote readings.
> A hundred years ago, this was an incredibly common way of setting a text - its was the original Nestle text did as well as some commentary sets like the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges.
> ________________________________
> From: Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> To: keeneto...@gmail.com
> Cc: open-scriptures@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:29:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> Tommy,
> I really like that idea. If all points of variation were identified, there could discussion threads on these points. Great Idea!
> Darrell
> --- On Mon, 3/23/09, Tommy <keeneto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Tommy <keeneto...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> > To: "Open Scriptures" <open-scriptures@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 4:29 AM
> > I like what you are suggesting. The only problem is that the
> > license
> > you are talking about isn't really open. Open
> > Scriptures would have a
> > license through a partnership with UBS, but that license
> > would not be
> > open, at least as I understand your proposal. This could
> > mean that
> > copyright issues could plague your app database.
> > Another possibility, perhaps parallel to the one you
> > suggest, is to
> > create own own eclectic Greek text. You mentioned the NET
> > bible, and
> > there are other crowd-sourced "translation"
> > projects out there. Why
> > not create a wiki-style crowd-sourced Greek Text project
> > where
> > scholars can contribute to compiled critical open-sourced
> > text of the
> > Greek New Testament. Greek manuscripts available on the net
> > could be
> > linked to and discussed, etc. This would require a good
> > deal of good
> > programming, since a standard wiki would probably not be
> > the best, but
> > there is a precedent:
> >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Wiki_Bible
> > I'd be happy to contribute what I can!
> > On Mar 21, 1:28 am, Weston Ruter
> > <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I've been giving a lot of thought to our current
> > crisis regarding copyrights
> > > and licensing. I think I have a solution to the
> > problem: Open Scriptures can
> > > be an intermediary between application developers and
> > content owners. The
> > > idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon
> > which developers can build
> > > applications of scripture while at the same time give
> > content owners a
> > > distribution channel and revenue stream.
> > > Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a low
> > barrier of entry as
> > > being a huge need for developers. He noted that large
> > content owners
> > > generally do not grant licenses to independent
> > developers who want to
> > > experiment with an idea or create an innovative
> > application using scriptural
> > > data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible
> > Society if I could have a
> > > license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request was
> > denied (thus when I
> > > discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started to
> > feel a little nervious).
> > > Later I learned (this last week) that it is a policy
> > of their organization
> > > to not give their texts to open source projects. Why?
> > Because they must
> > > generate revenue from the sale of the texts in order
> > to support their
> > > important work. I totally understand and affirm their
> > decision. They have a
> > > right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> > > I also firmly believe that developers need to be able
> > to have access to
> > > content owners' all-important data. We need
> > "Raw Data Now!" as Tim
> > > Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on
> > openscriptures.org). We need
> > > access to this raw data so that compelling new
> > applications can be built and
> > > so that we can build upon the data that each other
> > has. Aside from the NET
> > > Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners rarely
> > grant licenses to
> > > individuals... however, what if they granted licenses
> > to Open Scriptures
> > > which served as a proxy for developers? If all the
> > data from all of the
> > > content owners were integrated into a Linked Data web
> > of scriptural
> > > information, and if this Linked Data were stored in
> > the Open Scriptures'
> > > infrastructure, developers could then build
> > applications on top of an Open
> > > Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage of
> > the licenses that have
> > > already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures as a
> > cross between Google's
> > > AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures would
> > host scriptural
> > > applications (like AppEngine) that could take
> > advantage of the vast amount
> > > of interlinked scriptural data (as with Facebook's
> > social data).
> > > Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that utilize
> > non-free data would
> > > either be supported by donations, advertisements, or
> > subscriptions. Open
> > > Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the
> > application developer
> > > wouldn't have to worry about licensing or
> > payments, and the content owners
> > > wouldn't have to bother with granting thousands of
> > individual licenses or
> > > figuring out how to distribute their content and
> > generate revenue. Open
> > > Scriptures would facilitate application development,
> > content licensing, and
> > > revenue generation.
> > > With the raw data available and a well-designed API, a
> > framework would be in
> > > place which would allow thousands of developers to
> > work independently on
> > > applications that are interesting to them. They can
> > also work together to
> > > create the next generation of apps powered by Linked
> > Data. Hence having a
> > > single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would not
> > need to be the thrust of the
> > > project, but rather creating the underlying structure
> > that would power such
> > > applications.
> > > The more I think about this, the more I think it is
> > the best solution to the
> > > copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of entry
> > for application
> > > developers, it allows for all of the scriptural data
> > to be integrated into
> > > Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue
> > generation for content
> > > owners. Open source and closed content need not be
> > diametrically opposed.
> > > Developers and content owners need each other. Open
> > Scriptures can bring the
> > > two together.
> > > What do you think? These ideas are going to form a
> > main thrust of my
> > > presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
> We could start with something like Tischendorf to get the ball rolling. We would need some strict guidelines for editing the text,
From the short-readme of Tischendor-2-5.zip:
" Tischendorf's 8th edition Greek New Testament with morphological tags
Based on G. Clint Yale's Tischendorf text and on Dr. Maurice A. Robinson's Westcott-Hort text
Edited by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
The text and its analysis are in the Public Domain. Copy freely.
Tischendorf's 8th edition Greek New Testament with morphological tags
Based on G. Clint Yale's Tischendorf text and on Dr. Maurice A. Robinson's Westcott-Hort text
Edited by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
The text and its analysis are in the Public Domain. Copy freely."
Assuming that "public domain" status is legally valid, it looks like the start is there. ("Public Domain" is not a legally recognized concept in most of Europe and Asia. The secondary issue is whether or not it also relied on MorphGNT ---- I downloaded the file from MorphGNT.org.)
Anway, an example from John (Unicode) JOH 1:1.1 C Ἐν Ἐν PREP 1722 ἐν ! ἐν JOH 1:1.2 . ἀρχῇ ἀρχῇ N-DSF 746 ἀρχή ! ἀρχή JOH 1:1.3 . ἦν ἦν V-IAI-3S 1510 εἰμί ! εἰμί JOH 1:1.4 . ὁ ὁ T-NSM 3588 ὁ ! ὁ
And an example from John (Beta) JOH 1:1.1 *)EN *)EN PREP 1722 E)N ! E)N JOH 1:1.2 A)RXH=| A)RXH=| N-DSF 746 A)RXH/ ! A)RXH/ JOH 1:1.3 H)=N H)=N V-IAI-3S 1510 EI)MI/ ! EI)MI/
Another file contains the list of abbreviations. Looks like two different lemmatizations are used.
> here is that we of course do not have access to some of the best documents online,
Other than UBS4/NA27, WLC/BHS, what documents are you wanting?
> From: jonathon <jonathon.bl...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> To: open-scriptures@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 2:50 PM
> On 2009-03-23, Tommy wrote:
> > We could start with something like Tischendorf to get
> the ball rolling. We would need some strict guidelines for
> editing the text,
> From the short-readme of Tischendor-2-5.zip:
> " Tischendorf's 8th edition
> Greek New Testament
> with morphological tags
> Based on G. Clint Yale's Tischendorf text
> and on Dr. Maurice A. Robinson's
> Westcott-Hort text
> Edited by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
> The text and its analysis
> are in the Public Domain.
> Copy freely.
> Tischendorf's 8th edition
> Greek New Testament
> with morphological tags
> Based on G. Clint Yale's Tischendorf text
> and on Dr. Maurice A. Robinson's
> Westcott-Hort text
> Edited by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
> The text and its analysis
> are in the Public Domain.
> Copy freely."
> Assuming that "public domain" status is legally
> valid, it looks like
> the start is there.
> ("Public Domain" is not a legally recognized
> concept in most of Europe
> and Asia. The secondary issue is whether or not it also
> relied on
> MorphGNT ---- I downloaded the file from MorphGNT.org.)
Since this idea of mine seems to be dominating discussion, and since
it is only one possible solution to the problem before us, and since
Weston can still pursue licensing with GBS independently of a separate
open-source Greek text, I started a new thread on the topic. I would
love to hear thoughts as this is quite intriguing to me, and an idea I
have been toying with for some time, but don't have the know-how to
implement it.
> --- On Mon, 3/23/09, jonathon <jonathon.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: jonathon <jonathon.bl...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> > To: open-scriptures@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 2:50 PM
> > On 2009-03-23, Tommy wrote:
> > > We could start with something like Tischendorf to get
> > the ball rolling. We would need some strict guidelines for
> > editing the text,
> > From the short-readme of Tischendor-2-5.zip:
> > " Tischendorf's 8th edition
> > Greek New Testament
> > with morphological tags
> > Based on G. Clint Yale's Tischendorf text
> > and on Dr. Maurice A. Robinson's
> > Westcott-Hort text
> > Edited by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
> > The text and its analysis
> > are in the Public Domain.
> > Copy freely.
> > Tischendorf's 8th edition
> > Greek New Testament
> > with morphological tags
> > Based on G. Clint Yale's Tischendorf text
> > and on Dr. Maurice A. Robinson's
> > Westcott-Hort text
> > Edited by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
> > The text and its analysis
> > are in the Public Domain.
> > Copy freely."
> > Assuming that "public domain" status is legally
> > valid, it looks like
> > the start is there.
> > ("Public Domain" is not a legally recognized
> > concept in most of Europe
> > and Asia. The secondary issue is whether or not it also
> > relied on
> > MorphGNT ---- I downloaded the file from MorphGNT.org.)
Yes that is a great tool you are developing. It has the general idea of what I am thinking about for zhubert. We do want to keep zhubert fast, especially the tool tips. I think it would be best to have just one version displayed, but do something like with the scripture comparator to indicate to the reader that there is variant. Then he could just choose to view it or not.
The speed issue is critical, so the variations must be already in place in the text, not processed in real-time to get a solution. I don't like the idea of using the NA27/UBS4 in any way, except perhaps as a reference in hand to help identify where variants are. Also I think diacriticals are, well, critical too.
I really do like the scripture comparator. Those who are interested in critical work can use that. Those who just want to read Greek will use zhubert. Two different classes of users and a tool for each.
Darrell
--- On Mon, 3/23/09, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> To: "sceptreofjudah" <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 5:43 PM
> Hey Darrell,
> The Manuscript Comparator I think serves as an example of
> what you are
> proposing (especially the unified view):
> http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/
> Except in your proposal, you would not be able to select
> the NA27/UBS4 as
> the base text, but only as a text from which to obtain
> variants. Does that
> sound about right?
> Weston
> 2009/3/21 Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> > Weston,
> > I don't think they will go along with it. It's
> a control issue involving
> > bureaucrats. And behind bureaucracies is The
> Adversary.
> > I think there is another possible solution. Correct me
> if I am wrong with
> > the following scenario:
> > The MorphNT has added an enormous amount of
> morphological data to the
> > particular codex provided by the UBS4. The UBS4 is
> itself an amalgamation of
> > various public domain codices. What the UBS4 has
> done, and is the only
> > basis of their exclusive copyright, is to compile a
> list of references
> > supporting various variations in the text, then
> assigning a scale of
> > probability [A, B, C, D]. to them and selecting a
> derivative reading
> > according to these probabilities to create a specific
> admixture of the
> > public domain texts.
> > This specific admixture, and the footnoted variations
> with lists of
> > supporting codices, is the only copyright claim they
> have.
> > I believe our primary goal is ἡ οἰκονομία
> τοῦ θεοῦ -- the dispension of
> > Christ into man, as purely as possible. This means to
> make the learning of
> > ὁ λόγος in the original tongue as easy as
> possible. Which is why the
> > tooltips with morphology data and definitions is so
> vital. It makes a good
> > read.
> > So, what we need is a MorphNT which has <variation
> source="codex"> tags to
> > identify the variations. Then, when the text is
> rendered, the reader will
> > have selected which "public domain" codex he
> is interested in. Only that
> > will be rendered, but with a footnote identifying that
> there are
> > differences. By clicking on the footnote, alternate
> renditions may be
> > displayed.
> > The number of codices should be kept small (2,3,4) to
> keep this manageable.
> > Nothing should be mentioned concerning anything of
> UBS4 and its probability
> > factors or footnotes. This should suffice to keep us
> from violating any UBS4
> > "claims" to copyright.
> > ( I believe, if they could, they would try to keep the
> Bible locked away
> > and little nuggets of disinformation sold to the
> public to prop up their
> > bureaucracy -- or has this been tried before?)
> > This new MorphNT should be fairly easy to implement,
> if it isn't already
> > implemented in some way. I do know Zhubert has
> various codices that are
> > rendered in parallel.
> > > From: Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open
> Scriptures Platform
> > > To: "open-scriptures"
> <open-scriptures@googlegroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 10:28 PM
> > > I've been giving a lot of thought to our
> current crisis
> > > regarding copyrights
> > > and licensing. I think I have a solution to the
> problem:
> > > Open Scriptures can
> > > be an intermediary between application developers
> and
> > > content owners. The
> > > idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon
> which
> > > developers can build
> > > applications of scripture while at the same time
> give
> > > content owners a
> > > distribution channel and revenue stream.
> > > Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a
> low barrier
> > > of entry as
> > > being a huge need for developers. He noted that
> large
> > > content owners
> > > generally do not grant licenses to independent
> developers
> > > who want to
> > > experiment with an idea or create an innovative
> application
> > > using scriptural
> > > data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible
> Society
> > > if I could have a
> > > license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request
> was denied
> > > (thus when I
> > > discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started
> to feel a
> > > little nervious).
> > > Later I learned (this last week) that it is a
> policy of
> > > their organization
> > > to not give their texts to open source projects.
> Why?
> > > Because they must
> > > generate revenue from the sale of the texts in
> order to
> > > support their
> > > important work. I totally understand and affirm
> their
> > > decision. They have a
> > > right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> > > I also firmly believe that developers need to be
> able to
> > > have access to
> > > content owners' all-important data. We need
> "Raw
> > > Data Now!" as Tim
> > > Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on
> > > openscriptures.org). We need
> > > access to this raw data so that compelling new
> applications
> > > can be built and
> > > so that we can build upon the data that each
> other has.
> > > Aside from the NET
> > > Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners
> rarely grant
> > > licenses to
> > > individuals... however, what if they granted
> licenses to
> > > Open Scriptures
> > > which served as a proxy for developers? If all
> the data
> > > from all of the
> > > content owners were integrated into a Linked Data
> web of
> > > scriptural
> > > information, and if this Linked Data were stored
> in the
> > > Open Scriptures'
> > > infrastructure, developers could then build
> applications on
> > > top of an Open
> > > Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage
> of the
> > > licenses that have
> > > already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures
> as a cross
> > > between Google's
> > > AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures
> would host
> > > scriptural
> > > applications (like AppEngine) that could take
> advantage of
> > > the vast amount
> > > of interlinked scriptural data (as with
> Facebook's
> > > social data).
> > > Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that
> utilize
> > > non-free data would
> > > either be supported by donations, advertisements,
> or
> > > subscriptions. Open
> > > Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the
> > > application developer
> > > wouldn't have to worry about licensing or
> payments, and
> > > the content owners
> > > wouldn't have to bother with granting
> thousands of
> > > individual licenses or
> > > figuring out how to distribute their content and
> generate
> > > revenue. Open
> > > Scriptures would facilitate application
> development,
> > > content licensing, and
> > > revenue generation.
> > > With the raw data available and a well-designed
> API, a
> > > framework would be in
> > > place which would allow thousands of developers
> to work
> > > independently on
> > > applications that are interesting to them. They
> can also
> > > work together to
> > > create the next generation of apps powered by
> Linked Data.
> > > Hence having a
> > > single "Open Scriptures Viewer" would
> not need to
> > > be the thrust of the
> > > project, but rather creating the underlying
> structure that
> > > would power such
> > > applications.
> > > The more I think about this, the more I think it
> is the
> > > best solution to the
> > > copyright issue. It provides a low barrier of
> entry for
> > > application
> > > developers, it allows for all of the scriptural
> data to be
> > > integrated into
> > > Linked Data, and it handles licensing and revenue
> > > generation for content
> > > owners. Open source and closed content need not
> be
> > > diametrically opposed.
> > > Developers and content owners need each other.
> Open
> > > Scriptures can bring the
> > > two together.
> > > What do you think? These ideas are going to form
> a main
> > > thrust of my
> > > presentation at BibleTech next weekend.
Thanks, Darrell.
My intent in bringing up the Manuscript Comparator was not to suggest
zhubert users use it instead, but rather to show that we have the
foundational manuscript data in a database already, and this same data that
is used to power the Manuscript Comparator for Textual Criticism can also be
used to power a Greek Reader for former users of zhubert (may it rest in
peace).
Regarding the speed issue, one solution is to simply cache the output so
that it can be quickly retrieved. In the Manuscript Comparator, there is
some client-side processing should be moved onto the server. If you check it
out with JavaScript turned off, it'll return queries immediately (if they've
been queried before), although then the "Loading" notice never goes away :o)
Also, regarding the diacritics... I'm not sure that they are that important
because they are later additions by scholars; the original Greek texts
didn't have diacritics as far as I understand. Though, I think that text
with diacritics looks prettier.
Weston
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Yes that is a great tool you are developing. It has the general idea of
> what I am thinking about for zhubert. We do want to keep zhubert fast,
> especially the tool tips. I think it would be best to have just one version
> displayed, but do something like with the scripture comparator to indicate
> to the reader that there is variant. Then he could just choose to view it or
> not.
> The speed issue is critical, so the variations must be already in place in
> the text, not processed in real-time to get a solution. I don't like the
> idea of using the NA27/UBS4 in any way, except perhaps as a reference in
> hand to help identify where variants are. Also I think diacriticals are,
> well, critical too.
> I really do like the scripture comparator. Those who are interested in
> critical work can use that. Those who just want to read Greek will use
> zhubert. Two different classes of users and a tool for each.
> Darrell
> --- On Mon, 3/23/09, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open Scriptures Platform
> > To: "sceptreofjudah" <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 5:43 PM
> > Hey Darrell,
> > The Manuscript Comparator I think serves as an example of
> > what you are
> > proposing (especially the unified view):
> > http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/
> > Except in your proposal, you would not be able to select
> > the NA27/UBS4 as
> > the base text, but only as a text from which to obtain
> > variants. Does that
> > sound about right?
> > Weston
> > 2009/3/21 Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> > > Weston,
> > > I don't think they will go along with it. It's
> > a control issue involving
> > > bureaucrats. And behind bureaucracies is The
> > Adversary.
> > > I think there is another possible solution. Correct me
> > if I am wrong with
> > > the following scenario:
> > > The MorphNT has added an enormous amount of
> > morphological data to the
> > > particular codex provided by the UBS4. The UBS4 is
> > itself an amalgamation of
> > > various public domain codices. What the UBS4 has
> > done, and is the only
> > > basis of their exclusive copyright, is to compile a
> > list of references
> > > supporting various variations in the text, then
> > assigning a scale of
> > > probability [A, B, C, D]. to them and selecting a
> > derivative reading
> > > according to these probabilities to create a specific
> > admixture of the
> > > public domain texts.
> > > This specific admixture, and the footnoted variations
> > with lists of
> > > supporting codices, is the only copyright claim they
> > have.
> > > I believe our primary goal is ἡ οἰκονομία
> > τοῦ θεοῦ -- the dispension of
> > > Christ into man, as purely as possible. This means to
> > make the learning of
> > > ὁ λόγος in the original tongue as easy as
> > possible. Which is why the
> > > tooltips with morphology data and definitions is so
> > vital. It makes a good
> > > read.
> > > So, what we need is a MorphNT which has <variation
> > source="codex"> tags to
> > > identify the variations. Then, when the text is
> > rendered, the reader will
> > > have selected which "public domain" codex he
> > is interested in. Only that
> > > will be rendered, but with a footnote identifying that
> > there are
> > > differences. By clicking on the footnote, alternate
> > renditions may be
> > > displayed.
> > > The number of codices should be kept small (2,3,4) to
> > keep this manageable.
> > > Nothing should be mentioned concerning anything of
> > UBS4 and its probability
> > > factors or footnotes. This should suffice to keep us
> > from violating any UBS4
> > > "claims" to copyright.
> > > ( I believe, if they could, they would try to keep the
> > Bible locked away
> > > and little nuggets of disinformation sold to the
> > public to prop up their
> > > bureaucracy -- or has this been tried before?)
> > > This new MorphNT should be fairly easy to implement,
> > if it isn't already
> > > implemented in some way. I do know Zhubert has
> > various codices that are
> > > rendered in parallel.
> > > > From: Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: Solution to Copyright Issue: Open
> > Scriptures Platform
> > > > To: "open-scriptures"
> > <open-scriptures@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 10:28 PM
> > > > I've been giving a lot of thought to our
> > current crisis
> > > > regarding copyrights
> > > > and licensing. I think I have a solution to the
> > problem:
> > > > Open Scriptures can
> > > > be an intermediary between application developers
> > and
> > > > content owners. The
> > > > idea is for Open Scriptures to be a platform upon
> > which
> > > > developers can build
> > > > applications of scripture while at the same time
> > give
> > > > content owners a
> > > > distribution channel and revenue stream.
> > > > Zack Hubert at BibleTech last year identified a
> > low barrier
> > > > of entry as
> > > > being a huge need for developers. He noted that
> > large
> > > > content owners
> > > > generally do not grant licenses to independent
> > developers
> > > > who want to
> > > > experiment with an idea or create an innovative
> > application
> > > > using scriptural
> > > > data. A couple years ago I asked the German Bible
> > Society
> > > > if I could have a
> > > > license to the entire NA27/UBS4, but my request
> > was denied
> > > > (thus when I
> > > > discovered the MorphGNT was the same, I started
> > to feel a
> > > > little nervious).
> > > > Later I learned (this last week) that it is a
> > policy of
> > > > their organization
> > > > to not give their texts to open source projects.
> > Why?
> > > > Because they must
> > > > generate revenue from the sale of the texts in
> > order to
> > > > support their
> > > > important work. I totally understand and affirm
> > their
> > > > decision. They have a
> > > > right to receive compensation (Luke 10:7).
> > > > I also firmly believe that developers need to be
> > able to
> > > > have access to
> > > > content owners' all-important data. We need
> > "Raw
> > > > Data Now!" as Tim
> > > > Berners-Lee shared in his TED talk (find on
> > > > openscriptures.org). We need
> > > > access to this raw data so that compelling new
> > applications
> > > > can be built and
> > > > so that we can build upon the data that each
> > other has.
> > > > Aside from the NET
> > > > Bible, ESV, and a few others, content owners
> > rarely grant
> > > > licenses to
> > > > individuals... however, what if they granted
> > licenses to
> > > > Open Scriptures
> > > > which served as a proxy for developers? If all
> > the data
> > > > from all of the
> > > > content owners were integrated into a Linked Data
> > web of
> > > > scriptural
> > > > information, and if this Linked Data were stored
> > in the
> > > > Open Scriptures'
> > > > infrastructure, developers could then build
> > applications on
> > > > top of an Open
> > > > Scriptures framework/platform and take advantage
> > of the
> > > > licenses that have
> > > > already been obtained. Think of Open Scriptures
> > as a cross
> > > > between Google's
> > > > AppEngine and Facebook Apps. Open Scriptures
> > would host
> > > > scriptural
> > > > applications (like AppEngine) that could take
> > advantage of
> > > > the vast amount
> > > > of interlinked scriptural data (as with
> > Facebook's
> > > > social data).
> > > > Applications hosted on Open Scriptures that
> > utilize
> > > > non-free data would
> > > > either be supported by donations, advertisements,
> > or
> > > > subscriptions. Open
> > > > Scriptures would handle all of this, so that the
> > > > application developer
> > > > wouldn't have to worry about licensing or
> > payments, and
> > > > the content owners
> > > > wouldn't have to bother with granting
> > thousands of
> > > > individual licenses or
> > > > figuring out how to distribute their content and
> > generate
> > > > revenue. Open
> > > > Scriptures would facilitate application
> > development,
> > > > content licensing, and
> > > > revenue generation.
> > > > With the raw data available and a well-designed
> > API, a
> > > > framework would be in
> > > > place which would allow thousands of developers
Also, regarding the diacritics... I'm not sure that they are that important because they are later additions by scholars; the original Greek texts didn't have diacritics as far as I understand. Though, I think that text with diacritics looks prettier.
It depends on the manuscript. Some manuscripts had limited diacritics and others done. The same thing goes for punctuation as well, though I think punctuation was more widespread - though not consistent.
I think that the best place for Open Scriptures to start heavy development
is as an open framework. I agree with Weston (and Tim Berners-Lee) that we
should start our work on developing a platform that allows developers,
users, and raw data to interact.
Essentially, we would be creating a platform that interfaces with the raw
data texts and allows developers to efficiently and consistently interact
with those texts. The reason why this focus is so important is that it
streamlines our efforts and will allow us to provide developers with linked
content with which they can create fascinating apps.
Another benefit is that it will allow us to work slowly on the issue of
copyrights. Initially, we can include all of the libre content that we have
available. This content is more than sufficient for us to create our open
framework with. As Open Scriptures evolves we can easily allow for
copyrighted material to be included should the copyright holders be willing.
Regarding closed content, I do think that eventually we should allow access
to copyrighted material because so much of it is incredible valuable and
helpful. Metaphorically, it doesn't make much sense to me to reinvent the
wheel, we are trying to connect wheels to see how fast we can go, not
recalculate pi. On this level it makes the most sense to put together the
best content that we have access to in order to create the best platform.
Lastly, including copyrighted material could be a way to generate some
income to cover the operating costs of this project. At this point, we are
all volunteers but soon we will need some money to continue hosting and
development.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Michael Aubrey <mga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> *Also, regarding the diacritics... I'm not sure that they are that
> important because they are later additions by scholars; the original Greek
> texts didn't have diacritics as far as I understand. Though, I think that
> text with diacritics looks prettier.*
> *
> *
> It depends on the manuscript. Some manuscripts had limited diacritics and
> others done. The same thing goes for punctuation as well, though I think
> punctuation was more widespread - though not consistent.
> Assuming that "public domain" status is legally valid, it looks like > the start is there. > ("Public Domain" is not a legally recognized concept in most of Europe > and Asia. The secondary issue is whether or not it also relied on > MorphGNT ---- I downloaded the file from MorphGNT.org.)
By MorphGNT, I want to be clear you specifically mean my corrected version of CCAT's analysis. There is a lot more to the MorphGNT project than just that text it's really the umbrella for everything Ulrik and I are doing (although I also have syngnt.org waiting for the syntactic stuff :-)
Ulrik's tagged version of Yale's Tischendorf text has no connection with the NA/UBS text CCAT used so there's no danger there.
While Ulrik has put things in the "public domain" (probably because it's based on the work of Yale and Robinson who did likewise) personally I avoid public domain for the reasons you give and instead adopt a Creative Commons license for content (and an MIT/BSD license for code).
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:50 PM, jonathon wrote:
>> Assuming that "public domain" status is legally valid, it looks like
>> the start is there.
>> ("Public Domain" is not a legally recognized concept in most of Europe
>> and Asia. The secondary issue is whether or not it also relied on
>> MorphGNT ---- I downloaded the file from MorphGNT.org.)
> By MorphGNT, I want to be clear you specifically mean my corrected
> version of CCAT's analysis. There is a lot more to the MorphGNT
> project than just that text it's really the umbrella for everything
> Ulrik and I are doing (although I also have syngnt.org waiting for the
> syntactic stuff :-)
> Ulrik's tagged version of Yale's Tischendorf text has no connection
> with the NA/UBS text CCAT used so there's no danger there.
> While Ulrik has put things in the "public domain" (probably because
> it's based on the work of Yale and Robinson who did likewise)
> personally I avoid public domain for the reasons you give and instead
> adopt a Creative Commons license for content (and an MIT/BSD license
> for code).
> James
-- The court in the southern city of Shenzhen on Wednesday sentenced 11
people to jail terms of up to six-and-a-half years for making
high-quality counterfeit software that was sold in 36 countries,
Microsoft said in a statement.
The first clue that genuine Microsoft products were not being offered,
was that it was "high quality software".
As a (fairly uneducated) Greek student, I know that diacritics are
very important. One accent mark can distinguish between "the" and
"that which". I find it very difficult to read Greek with no accents,
breathing marks, or iota subscripts. But yes, some of the original
manuscripts were all caps with no diacritics or punctuation.
-Andrew
On Mar 23, 10:41 pm, Michael Aubrey <mga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also, regarding the diacritics... I'm not sure that they are that important because they are later additions by scholars; the original Greek texts didn't have diacritics as far as I understand. Though, I think that text with diacritics looks prettier.
> It depends on the manuscript. Some manuscripts had limited diacritics and others done. The same thing goes for punctuation as well, though I think punctuation was more widespread - though not consistent.
|
