...life can be translucent

Menu

YiJingDao 1.2: YiJing English translation plus Chinese dictionary

bernie

visitor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
YiJingDao Lite 1.2 is a free Windows application, improved and without adds.

YiJingDao Lite can run on most Windows versions, from Windows 10 to Windows XP.

It has a modern YiJing translation with useful comments plus a dictionary with the meaning of the Chinese characters that form the original text
The Oracle can be consulted either with the coins or the yarrow-stalk method, using an animated interface.
Oracle answers can be stored in a database, from where they can be imported or exported, to share them with others or for backup purposes.
Trends in the Oracle answers can be analyzed easily by using the Analyze button in the database.
Guidance for interpreting the Oracle answers is provided, so users can know how to interpret mutant lines.
Besides the English translation, it includes the original Chinese text with a literal word by word translation of the Book of Changes.
This feature is very handy for the serious YiJing aficionados, since only in that way the whole range of meanings of the Oracle answers can be unveiled.
YiJingDao Lite is portable, after installing it on a folder, that folder can be copied to a USB Stick or to any other hard disk (In case the program is not installed, but copied, the two TTF fonts in its folder should be installed by the user).

You can see some screenshots, learn more about the program, and download it at:

http:/yijingdao.org
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
I guess I'm glad that my poorly-listed bibliography enry has been removed entirely,
despite all the work that has been appropriated from my own books.
 

bernie

visitor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I guess I'm glad that my poorly-listed bibliography enry has been removed entirely,
despite all the work that has been appropriated from my own books.

I really appreciate your work Bradford, but I'm baffled by your reaction.

I'm sorry if I your book entry in my bibliography is wrong. I removed it from my freely downloadable dictionary, but it remains in the printed version because releasing another edition is too expensive for my slim pocket.

I based my dictionary in Karlgren (two different dictionaries), Matthews, Legge, Schuessler, Wieger and Wenlin dictionaries, besides many YiJing translations, including yours. Well, the full bibliography is in my dictionary "YiJing (I Ching) Chinese/English Dictionary".

I mention the dictionary because your current complaint is similar to the one that you posted some years ago when I released my dictionary, so it seems you feel I copied it from your work.

My translation is very different from your work, so I don't understand why you are so grumpy.
Now, by force, any dictionaries should have some similarities, it is not possible to create new meaning from the thin air.
May be yours is another example of the current american copyright frenzy :D.

bernie
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
A lot of work went into assigning the Mathews and Karlgren numbers and the radical+strokes feature to all of the characters. I know that you felt free to just copy these, but they carry with them characteristics of my own design that can be found nowhere else. For example, the Mathews numbers 8000 and up. Credit where due is a simple courtesy, especially with something that saves you hundreds of hours of work.
 
Last edited:

bernie

visitor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
A lot of work went into assigning the Mathews and Karlgren numbers and the radical+strokes feature to all of the characters. I know that you felt free to just copy these, but they carry with them characteristics of my own design that can be found nowhere else. For example, the Mathews numbers 8000 and up. Credit where due is a simple courtesy, especially with something that saves you hundreds of hours of work.

The Mathew and Karlgren numbers for each character, and also the radical numbers are in Wenlin (an excelent Chinese-English digital dictionary).
The I Ching Lexicon (http://www.cartershanklin.com/ching/DEFAULT.HTM) also has the Radical + strokes for each I Ching character.
And the number of strokes and radical numbers for each character can be seen as well in the Mathew Radical Index (p. 1181 in my Mathew version).
I don't see why it matters where I took them from, since that information is in the public domain, it is nor private.
The only “unique” thing that I took from your translation was the numeration for the 11 characters over 8000 (because those 11 characters are not found in Mathew). I didn't think that was important (I still I think it is not), but may be I was mistaken, sorry.
 

Sixth Relative

visitor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
341
Reaction score
28
So, you recognize the fact that your translation is based on Bradford's work (among others) but removed the reference to his work in your bibliography; you also recognize the fact that you used at least 11 times Bardford's unique work without proper reference. Even though, you are "baffled" by his reaction and you tried to put the blame on Bradford.

Well, it seems your moral (and legal) compass is broken. Supporting in any way yijingdao under this context is to go against everything the Yijing and the Dao stand for.
 
S

svenrus

Guest
Don't forget that the WWW is open......

Partly I understand the conflict here and partly I don't in that You've laid it all out in a public area.

(But I surely don't like the Idea that someone makes others effort into plain bussiness, if that's the case)
 

Sixth Relative

visitor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
341
Reaction score
28
a) The www is NOT open (not really)
b) "laid it out in a public area" doesn't mean you renounce to your authorship. Don't confuse "to be published in a public area" (aka, the www) with "to be published in the public domain". Bardford's work is not in the public domain.
b) Even if www were open, that wouldn't exempt you (nor morally nor legally) to aknowledge other's work: Even in the most open type of licence (think in the most open licence in Creative Commons), you still are bound to the condition of attribution: you have to give due credit to the author.
 
S

svenrus

Guest
I guess I mentioned the morally aspect: (But I surely don't like the Idea that someone makes others effort into plain bussiness, if that's the case)

- and if the www isn't open (really) what's the use then ?

In the rest I agree with You


 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
134
I guess I mentioned the morally aspect: (But I surely don't like the Idea that someone makes others effort into plain bussiness, if that's the case)
- and if the www isn't open (really) what's the use then ?
In the rest I agree with You


Well, of course the internet is open. And public domain exists. But there are details to pay attention to and protocols to follow if there is to be any kind of moral foundation to the sharing of information rather than it's appropriation and use without due credit to the work in question, as is the case here.

It's particularly unfortunate that Bernie has sought fit to be dismissive and disingenuous about this fact.
 

bernie

visitor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
So, you recognize the fact that your translation is based on Bradford's work (among others) but removed the reference to his work in your bibliography; you also recognize the fact that you used at least 11 times Bardford's unique work without proper reference. Even though, you are "baffled" by his reaction and you tried to put the blame on Bradford.

Well, it seems your moral (and legal) compass is broken. Supporting in any way yijingdao under this context is to go against everything the Yijing and the Dao stand for.

The only thing I took from Bradford were 11 numbers. I use the same 11 numbers than Bradford to refer to 11 Chinese characters that are not in Mathew dictionary.
From the comments in this thread I notice that some people do nos understand much about what it this about.
Under the same token, you may think that Bradford stole from from Mathew the numbers that Mathew's dictionary uses to identify Chinese characters.

And Bradfor and me were not speaking about my translation but about my Dictionary, more specifically about some numbers in it and about the radicals and stroke counts.

Do you know what are radicals and stroke counts?
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
Sixth Relative
Bernie is not bound by any copyright law here. He is also not bound to tell the truth about how he made use of my efforts. Not even with the few things that can be proven. Nor is he bound by any personal code of honor. He is free to do this. He's like a lawyer in this matter - much of what matters is what you can hide or get away with.
Another writer, Johnathan Star, lifted my Matrix idea and used it without attribution in his published Daodejing, but in changing it enough to make it different, he also made it much worse. And with his lack of understanding, he neglected to make the words in his version context-specific, which is where half of the meaning of the words lie, and his inability to use the matrix is obvious in his unrelated translation.
It's just as well that I'm not mentioned in Bernie's Bibliography. My work doesn't need this referral.
 

bernie

visitor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
This thread got out of hand and very confused

Bradford said that I took two things that are the fruit of his work.

1.
The numbers for the 11 Chinese characters above 8000.
That is true, I used the same numbers to identify 11 characters in my Dictionary, not my translation, which doesn't show the hexagram's numbers and neither its radicals nor stroke count #.

2.
The Radical number + stroke counts for each character.
That is not true.
The Radical number + stroke counts for each Chinese appear in many Chinese dictionaries. They do not belong to Bradford, they do not belong to anybody.

Notice that my digital YiJing (which I promoted in my first post), doesn't have the radical numbers and neither the hexagrams number, so Bradford is speaking about my Chinese Dictionary, not my translation.

Now I use 11 numbers to identify eleven characters and I use the same numbers than Bradford.
I would have used another numbers easily, but I consider the numbers irrelevant.
You do not need much work and neither creativity to assign some (arbitrary) numbers to a character.

I will not continue with this discussion, it went long enough. Some will understand and some will follow the pack.
 

bradford

(deceased)
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
2,626
Reaction score
410
Bernie is like the squirrely rodent caught by the daylight in 35.
At least he's confessing to taking the grains that he still has stuck in his teeth.

He just can't understand that this is a point of honor, not a point of law.
 
Last edited:

Sixth Relative

visitor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
341
Reaction score
28
[/COLOR][/I]- and if the www isn't open (really) what's the use then ?


Let me rephrase: the 'openess' of the www is not absolute; copyright laws still apply.

A real open www would be the one
a) covering full intended scope,
b) lifts leftcopying limitations
c) allows absolute practical modifiability
d) lifts attribution obligation
e) grants all related rights
f) forbides any access control prohibition
and
g) grants worldwide applicability

More than 95% of the actual www fails to meet all those conditions. Try to upload a copyright video on Youtube to test the 'openess' of the current www. Or look at the terms and conditions in this very site :D
 
S

svenrus

Guest
I'm aware that because the bank is open nine to five it doesn't mean that I can go in and rob it.

About openess: my personal view on the burning of the books ordered by the socalled First emperor of China, Ch'in Shih-huang-ti, would also had included the I Ching if it wasn't because it was that widespread, popular.... The force of openess.

As times go by only the material to wich there is the most open access will survey. The copyrighted material will suffer oblivion.

Once again, that doesn't mean that because the bank is open it's free for to be robbed.

And I agree with You in that this openess should be guarded - not Your words, I know - for to prevent missuse.
 
S

svenrus

Guest
Better late than never: Just recognized that the word copyrighted could be understood in the way that making money out of translating, programming, making reading etc. etc. were "a bad thing"; I better should have used the word restrictet there.....
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top