incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Hunspell dictionaries are not just words lists (+ other matters)
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:13:40 GMT
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Olivier R. <olivier.noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Rob,
>
> Le 07/11/2011 12:51, Rob Weir a écrit :
>
>> What you say above does not really make a legal difference.  What
>> makes something copyright-able is creative expression. not hard work.
>> You could spend decades collecting data on bird populations, measuring
>> the positions of stars, recording the names of everyone in your town,
>> etc., and this could all be very hard work.  But in the end what you
>> have is just a set of facts.  It is not a creative work.
>
> OK, I understand this point of view, but there is different ways to do what
> I and others did. Creating a affixation file is not just collecting
> informations. This is a way of structuring data and generating inflexions.
> It could have been done in a very different way.
> Even tagging, classifications, lemmatization and repartition of entries can
> be a matter of choice, otherwise there would not have been people trying to
> convince me to do it differently. It’s not a mathematical matter there.
> Obviously, part of the work is collecting data, but there is also, mostly at
> first, a creation of the mind (even if I won’t pretend it’s a piece of art).

And I'm sure there is choice and in how one structures a telephone
book as well. Alphabetical versus topical.  Fonts choices.  Consistent
ways of abbreviating given names. But he courts have held that the
facts expressed in telephone directory are not copyrightable.

However, the actual page of the phone book -- the layout, fonts, etc.,
could be copyrighted.  But it would also be fair use to extract the
non creative "facts" contained on that page and then to include them
in another work.  Reverse engineering to extract the facts is fine.
That's my understanding, at least.

> But I won’t bother you for long on that topic, we are not at court trying to
> defend our respective point of view. I’m sure you get my point, even if you
> may not agree.
>

I think we understand each other.

> What I don’t understand is why you are saying you should respect the
> copyright of something that is not copyright-able according to you. It seems
> to me that’s defending a point of view and the opposite one. (I wonder if we
> should blame you or thank you.)
>

I said something slightly different.  I said we should respect the
author's intentions/wishes, regardless of the copyright.  In other
words, even if they made something available under an Apache 2.0
license, if the author came to us and said, "I really don't want you
to use my library", then we should respect that.  Of course, this is
within reason.  But if someone claims to have invented the numbers
1-10 and asks us not to use them, then we can ignore them and
recommend professional counseling.

-Rob

> Regards,
> Olivier
>

Mime
View raw message