Re: Question About GNU General Public License

[Isaac]

On 18 Jul 2004 23:31:52 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
><telford@xenon.triode.net.au> writes:
> 
>> I'm pretty sure a symbol table would fall under the "phonebook"
>> ruling that a table of facts presented in obvious
>> (i.e. non-creative) format and ordering cannot be considered a
>> creative work.
> 
> Who claimed that it was?  But it is clearly a derivative (even a
> mechanical derivative) of a creative work, and so the copyright for
> the original creative work applies.

If it is not creative then it is not a work at all.  It cannot then
be a derivative work because it is not a work based on one or more
pre-existing works. 

There are plenty of examples of taking non copyrightable expression
from works were the courts have found that the taking is not copyright
infringement.  Lotus v. Borland is one such example. 

Isaac