Evangelical Textual Criticism

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Blog translations

It's always good to see articles from this blog being translated into other languages. Today I came across a translation of my review of Misquoting Jesus into Bulgarian. We've already recorded its translation into Arabic. Obviously this shows the interest in the topic. However, I'd be interested to know if other posts have been translated unbeknownst to us (translation is of course welcome, and I don't think any of us would mind it provided no one is making money from it, due acknowledgement of the original publication is given, and, of course, the translation is accurate.)

8 comments:

  1. tack a 'creative commons license' on to your site somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seems like a good idea to me. Tommy and Pete H., what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good to see you here Jim. Yes, I think it is a good idea.

    There are different sets of conditions to choose and combine:

    http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

    How about Attribution, Share Alike, Non-Commercial and No Derivative Works?

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Nyström translated my post on the reconstruction of the lunar landing footage and the NTTC parallel into Swedish, here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Google Translate will pull up a blog in any number of languages. It will even translate search terms and pull up blogs that contain translations of those terms.

    It is no longer necessary for an article to be purposely translated in order for people to read it in other languages--but computer translation still leaves somewhat to be desired.

    ReplyDelete
  6. White man, I suggest you read this Korean report on Codex Sinaiticus (in regard to googletranslation):

    http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/05/codex-sinaiticus-in-korean-via.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Share Alike and No Derivative Works are mutually exclusive.

    No Derivative Works would disallow translation (which is a derivative).

    Share Alike means if you create a derivative work (including combining), all works need to be under the same license conditions. It's sort of the creative commons equivalent of the GPL and is usually used with Commercial. The idea is you can create commercial works (that is you can sell the result), but the combined work must also be usable by others to create new works. This is used heavily by wikipedia commons - which requires works included there to be free for commercial use.

    The license which most mimics what I see in the academic world seems to be:

    Attribution, Non-Commercial

    ReplyDelete