Skip to main content
replaced http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ with https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

Stack Exchange content itself is licensed with specific attribution requirements and thus it would be discourteous (aside from any actual legal technicalities) not to attribute a biblical translation as requested. (Or at least in a visible and unambiguous fashion.)

The practice of a visible attribution that is then linked to a site like Bible Gateway as suggested by otherssuggested by others appears to be the socially accepted procedure. It also seems like a reasonable accommodation for a site where users may use any translation they choose which makes it very difficult to provide all the exact requested copyright statements for any given contribution.

In short, I have no idea whether a linked attribution as illustrated in other posts is enough to prevent a legal dispute, but it does seem like a reasonable and respectful approach from my perspective.

Stack Exchange content itself is licensed with specific attribution requirements and thus it would be discourteous (aside from any actual legal technicalities) not to attribute a biblical translation as requested. (Or at least in a visible and unambiguous fashion.)

The practice of a visible attribution that is then linked to a site like Bible Gateway as suggested by others appears to be the socially accepted procedure. It also seems like a reasonable accommodation for a site where users may use any translation they choose which makes it very difficult to provide all the exact requested copyright statements for any given contribution.

In short, I have no idea whether a linked attribution as illustrated in other posts is enough to prevent a legal dispute, but it does seem like a reasonable and respectful approach from my perspective.

Stack Exchange content itself is licensed with specific attribution requirements and thus it would be discourteous (aside from any actual legal technicalities) not to attribute a biblical translation as requested. (Or at least in a visible and unambiguous fashion.)

The practice of a visible attribution that is then linked to a site like Bible Gateway as suggested by others appears to be the socially accepted procedure. It also seems like a reasonable accommodation for a site where users may use any translation they choose which makes it very difficult to provide all the exact requested copyright statements for any given contribution.

In short, I have no idea whether a linked attribution as illustrated in other posts is enough to prevent a legal dispute, but it does seem like a reasonable and respectful approach from my perspective.

Source Link

Stack Exchange content itself is licensed with specific attribution requirements and thus it would be discourteous (aside from any actual legal technicalities) not to attribute a biblical translation as requested. (Or at least in a visible and unambiguous fashion.)

The practice of a visible attribution that is then linked to a site like Bible Gateway as suggested by others appears to be the socially accepted procedure. It also seems like a reasonable accommodation for a site where users may use any translation they choose which makes it very difficult to provide all the exact requested copyright statements for any given contribution.

In short, I have no idea whether a linked attribution as illustrated in other posts is enough to prevent a legal dispute, but it does seem like a reasonable and respectful approach from my perspective.