On 2006-09-17, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, that's a fact. But how I _write down_ the fact can be > a creative expression. Do I say "hello is a common greeting" > or do I add its etymology, a comparison with other languages, > an explanation of when "hello" is more appropriate than > "good day", "hi" and other greetings? > > That is a bit more than a dictionary, atleast compared to what my > dictionary (Concise English Dictionary) contains. Which is looks like > the following:
I guess I was spoiled, I only have big dictionaries. :) If you just say: > Route, röt, n. A course or way. then you're stating fact and you have no copyright. If you write all that M-W or books like that write on a single word, then you have creative expression. > They have copyright on the way it is presented. Not on the actual > definition. So do we agree? :-) I'm not sure what you mean by "presented", but M-W has a copyright on its particular entry for "hello". The above from your CED is too short to be creative, so it's not copyrighted. But I would not call M-W's text a "presentation". To me "presentation" means things like the font, whitespace, arranging entries and so on. Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
