>There are also other things in the OED that can actually be >copyrighted.
You have as yet provided no reason for anyone to believe that the definitions themselves are not subject to copyright. I did infact provide such a reason, maybe you disagree with it, but that is beside the point. They are not very creative, and hence not subject to copyright IMHO. They are also facts, so that is yet another reason why a dictionary should not be subjected to copyright. How you rpesent those definition is on the other hand subject to 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 _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
