> A dictionary requires as much work as a phone book and isn't a > very creative process, now, an encyclopedia, that would be > another subject.
The amount of work isn't important, it's about the creativity. I was responding to this part, where you imply that the amount of work is what matters: | Making a list of words with definitions is a lot of work. So a | dictionary is certain protected by copyright. Writing all those definitions in the dictionary requires creativity, so you get copyright on the dictionary. It is about as creative as listing phone numbers and names, or producing a list of genomes. We disagree that a dictionary can be copyrighted, I don't consider it a very creative processes at all. I don't have any references, but I seem to recall that only the "presentation" of a dictionary can be copyrighted, which is just about the only creative work involved in producing a dictionary. Same deal with a phone book, really. Cheers. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
