> 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 :) No worries. > 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? IMHO, it is. I think this is something we have all done when we were younger, our teachers asking us to explain the meaning of a word, which is why I don't find it creative at all. It is also something you do in math and computing science very often, defining terms that you will use. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
