Re: GNU Free Database License

[Christopher Browne]

In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, "Alfred M. Szmidt" 
<ams@gnu.org> transmitted:
>    > A dictionary requires as much work as a phone book and isn't a
>    > very creative process, now, an encyclopedia, that would be
>    > another subject.
>
>    The amount of work isn't important, it's about the creativity.
>
> 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.
>
>    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, 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.

I'd agree that listing genomes and phone listings isn't terribly
creative.

<aside>
The notion of patenting the genomes themselves seems preposterous to
me.  On the other hand, a patent on a particular therapy that uses
genomic information seems like something that fits with what is
appropriate to patents.
</aside>

Dictionaries, though, require a fair bit of creative thought to
generate descriptive definitions.
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/lsf.html
Rules of  the Evil Overlord #196.  "I will hire an  expert marksman to
stand by the entrance to my  fortress. His job will be to shoot anyone
who rides up to challenge me."  <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>