On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:56:02AM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote: > Anyway, I found these in a book and simply typed them in and I > consider these translations/definitions so vague that I don't see how > they are copyright-able yet I want to check it over with you all. So, > I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all, are vague > translations/definitions copyright-able? You will note that the > original word part is Latin. Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation and many Europeans would probably say "yes". _Matthew Bender and Hyperlaw v. West_ and _Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ would indicate "no" (in the United States), but I don't think there's anything *squarely* on point. I would say go ahead. If no one can reasonably tell what work you're "infringing", that's a good case for either 1) copyrightability by you or 2) uncopyrightability of the work altogether. In the former case, if you apply a DFSG-free license to the work, then you're just fine for Debian main. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti branden@debian.org | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpi_4hEsiwda.pgp
Description: PGP signature