Re: Corrupt Vulgate

   Date: 4 Jan 1994 14:26:13 U
   From: Don Westblade <westblade@ac.hillsdale.edu>

   > If the control over the
   > vulgate text were maintained, then the text would not have been
   > available *at all*.  At least there is currently a partial text
   > around for easy access."

   This misses the point of Bob Kraft's post altogether. The sort of
   "control" that CCAT maintains is control over the integrity of the
   text, not over access to the text. The text *is* available, and is
   available in a full and reliable, and not merely partial, form--
   precisely because of the sort of control being called suspicious here.

If what people want is the integrity of the text, then CCAT has no
rights whatsoever: anyone is allowed to write down anything they like
and call it the "Vulgate Bible"; perhaps this would be fraudulent, but
it certainly doesn't infringe on some prerogative of CCAT.

If CCAT wants *only* to ensure the integrity of *its* text, then
allowing other texts to be distributed can't hurt that.  At most, CCAT
should require that its name only be used on texts received directly
from them.  If CCAT wants to help *everyone* get a text with
integrity, then it should put a notice about how to get a reliable
checksum on each copy.  Then people will be very likely to get a
reliable text.

   To the further objection that
   > The only time when an incomplete or erroneous text is a problem is
   > when having some assurance that one has a correct and complete text is
   > important.

   I would reply that this is always important and and therefore always a

That is because you apparently have a strikingly limited idea of why
the Vulgate would be useful.  One possibility (that I actually
considered, until it became too difficult to find the text) was that I
could put pithy Latin quotes from the psalms in my .signature.  It
really wouldn't matter to me if there were an error, because the cost
would be minimal.

   I, for one, therefore wouldn't want CCAT to change its policies.

If CCAT allows the text to be distributed without limitation (except
to prohibit the attachment of its name to other copies), then this
would not hurt you *in the least*.  You could still ask CCAT for a
text, they could still give you one.  The fact that some other person
gave some fourth person a corrupted text doesn't prevent *you* from
using the distribution channel you already have.

As for me, the existing channel is insufficient.  Using gopher is
difficult for me; sending out a registration form is draconian.  The
text should be freely available.  I intend to find a copy by some
means (not involving subterfuge or fraud) and then make it as publicly
available as I can.  If that means I will have to give out the
slightly broken text in Finland, so be it.  That's better than nothing
at all.  Since the Vulgate is a public domain work, a copy received
without license restriction has no further restriction applicable.