From: Rui Miguel Seabra (rms@1407.org)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 07:05:59 EDT
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 18:16, ericzen wrote:
> On 2003.07.18 02:38 Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> >
> > Just be very sure that only non-copyrighted material
> > is included, or that permission is granted by the
> > copyright owners.
> >
> > Anyway at the risk of overstating, we don't so much
> > want the most common words as we want the functional
> > words.
>
> Why would it matter?
> I'll put eighty bucks down that Michael Crichton doesn't care if
> his "to"s are in the dictionary or if Wikipedia's "to"s are in
> the dictionary. Granted, if "Jurassic" shows up in the dictionary
> (like your second point), we might have more serious issues....
>
> I, personally, would like to think that the out put will be
> hand-eyeballed, which would prevent the likes of "time" from
> entering the dictionary (relatively common) and ensure that "this"
> is present.
Collections may be copyrighted in some places.
However, I don't think common words are something that would be
considered copyrighteable, or did I miss something?
Rui
-- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 07:19:40 EDT