Timeline for Copyright and Attribution
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2011 at 15:28 | comment | added | Jack Douglas | @Bob he he - us Brits didn't vote for him either :) | |
| Oct 22, 2011 at 14:01 | comment | added | Bob Jones | "and also has a relatively liberal license." The real advantage to the KJV is it's liberal license. I was under the mistaken conception that the copyright would surely be out of date, only to find out that the king claimed a perpetual copyright. I knew there was a reason I didn't vote for him. However, it is ignored and not enforced outside of Britain. I cannot find it at the moment, I am sure that one of the intro pages to it said that we were authorized to use it in a list of activities. such as worship, teaching etc, and I don't think the wording of the phrase included attribution. | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 9:33 | comment | added | Caleb | However in many cases it will be important. I will understand an answer differently if quoting the NLT vs the NASB. Also, I often want to read the context in the same translation the answer used to avoid introducing needless misunderstanding, and may prefer to do that with books or my own favorite sites rather than the ones usually linked to for individual verses. | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 9:32 | comment | added | Caleb | Good question. While technically one can see what translation was used if you hover on a link, I would really prefer to see the acronym of the translation used in all cases were a verse is quoted. As you note, it makes a difference to how I as a reader interpret the answer. If an OP does not provide it, I will almost always do a search to figure it out. If the difference doesn't matter (as in the case of you quoting whatever is handy) then it probably won't matter to a me as a reader either and you could have saved me the trouble by sourcing it. | |
| Oct 9, 2011 at 5:24 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | @Caleb: The point of having a default isn't to force everyone to use the same translation, but to make quoting slightly easier. (I purposely avoided calling it an official translation for just that reason. It clearly would never work. (Except I bet there will be a clear preference within a few months.)) Pretending I never mentioned the idea of a default, would you agree a link is a proper way to source content quoted on the internet? | |
| Oct 8, 2011 at 11:32 | comment | added | Caleb | There is never going to be a "default version" for quotations site wide. Many users tend to use the same translations in their answers, but the site itself does not and will not have a policy to enforce this. If you want to just make a note at the bottom of your post after quoting several verses I think that's fine, but it's up to you, not the site to properly attribute the content you quote. The same goes for Wikipedia or any other source. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 20:31 | history | answered | Jon Ericson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |