On 2006-09-16, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Right, sorry about that! I meant to say "lot of creative work". The amount of actual work is irrelevant. It must have been late :) > 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. Well, I do think there's a difference between listing names and numbers on the one hand, and listing words and definitions on the other hand. Is it really trivial to make a definition for a word, phrase or expression? Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
