Re: GNU Free Database License

[Anas R.]

>Again, this assertion seems completely bizarre.  If it were so, why
>would we regard some dictionaries' definitions as better than others?
>There is not a single, correct definition of any English word.  There
>are many ways of describing what a word means, and coming up with a
>good one is a creative process.
>
> -- Richard

Exactly,
You can read the same story from two different writers, and you might see a big 
differance,
because one of them can find (better words) to describe the events, the views, 
and light your imagination!

>Well, a photo isn't a "fact", while a dictionary is a list of facts
>(definitins).  And you cannot copyright a fact (or has this been
>changed recently?), like the fact that "hello is a common greeting
>used in the English language".  What you can copyright is the
>presentation of said fact.  So a dictionary is copyrighted, but only
>in the sense of how it presents its "facts".  Much like you can
>copyright the presentation of phonebook, e.g. using some specialised
>layout.  But you cannot copyright the name + number in that phone
>book, since that is considered a `fact'.
>
>Cheers.

Names + Phone Numbers are definitely facts, but not word definitions, they are 
debatable.