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
This is a very odd view. Have you ever tried producing good
definitions for words?
Yes, I do it each day,
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
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
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
On 2006-09-17, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Sure,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
The difference in creativity between giving a phone number and
giving a definition seems so obvious that I can't really understand
why you equate them.
Because there is no creative thought process in giving meaning to
words that already exist. We know what they mean. I have already
On 2006-09-17, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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.
What if my CED contains over 30,000
On 2006-09-17, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
if u want to know the astoning opinion Richard stallman about
Microsoft, Bush and Human right listen this uncensored interview
http://isohunt.com/download/13661299/richard+stallman
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On 2006-09-17, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you want to call the OED and M-W a word encyclopedia and
not a dictionary, I guess we are on the same page. OED entries are
copyrighted, the short phrases from a simple dictionary are not.
You are again implying that
Clinging to sanity, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] mumbled into her
beard:
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
