>Again, this assertion seems completely bizarre. If it were so, why >would we regard some dictionaries' definitions as better than others? >There is not a single, correct definition of any English word. There >are many ways of describing what a word means, and coming up with a >good one is a creative process. > > -- Richard
Exactly, You can read the same story from two different writers, and you might see a big differance, because one of them can find (better words) to describe the events, the views, and light your imagination! >Well, a photo isn't a "fact", while a dictionary is a list of facts >(definitins). And you cannot copyright a fact (or has this been >changed recently?), like the fact that "hello is a common greeting >used in the English language". What you can copyright is the >presentation of said fact. So a dictionary is copyrighted, but only >in the sense of how it presents its "facts". Much like you can >copyright the presentation of phonebook, e.g. using some specialised >layout. But you cannot copyright the name + number in that phone >book, since that is considered a `fact'. > >Cheers. Names + Phone Numbers are definitely facts, but not word definitions, they are debatable. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
