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 18:06:26 GMT
2011/11/7 André Schnabel <andre.schnabel@gmx.net>:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Am 07.11.2011 16:51, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Andre Schnabel<Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> The jurisdiction of the creator only matters in the case of local
>> infringement or in the context of international treaties.  And I don't
>> believe any treaties have recognized sui generis IP rights for
>> collections of facts, i.e., databases.  It has been discussed but
>> there is no agreement.  See the WIPO statement on this:
>>
>> http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/databases.html
>
> This is not a statement on IP rights for databases - it is a statement on IP
> rights for
> *Non-Original Databases* .
>
> We obviously disagree on this part of the text:
> " The originality requirement that a database must constitute an
> intellectual creation
> by reason of the selection or arrangement of its contents in order to enjoy
> copyright
> protection means that some databases are not protected ..."
>
> So obviously some databases actually are protected. Of course - if you
> think, that a
> dictionary is just a mere collection of words you would obviously come to
> the
> conclusion that this is no intellectual creation.
>

For example, an anthology of poetry, where an editor has selected and
ordered specific works.  The anthology can have a copyright.  Put the
anthology into a database and it can still be protected.  MS Encarta
CD encyclopedia, an example from years ago.

But I don't think a selection of "all French words in alphabetical
order, along with well-known, non-original facts about these words",
would receive that same protection.  And if it did, anyone could
extract the same facts and put them in a different arrangement with a
different selection, and use that.

That is the key difference.  With the anthology, the underlying poems
are still individually copyrighted.  But with a dictionary, I think
the underlying facts are not.  So the practical protection is far
less, since fair use would allow the extraction and reuse of the
underlying facts.

> btw ... if IBM does have dictionaries available, why don't you just publish
> those, if
> there is no copyright protection in place? Doing so would end this
> discussion very
> quickly andwould be a great contribution to the project.
>

This was already discussed in another part of this thread.  Our
dictionaries are not in Hunspell format.  We use a different spell
checker altogether.  So to make use of these dictionaries would
require a format conversion.  I'm not sure how hard that would be.

-Rob

> regards,
>
> André
>

Mime
View raw message