News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Esquivalience by WalterGR on Monday April 15, 2013 @08:34PM (#5555450)
As the editor of a slang dictionary that accepts user submissions, I've seen many terms submitted to my dictionary that have become accidental esquivaliences.

One great example is "poonj," meaning to have sexual intercourse. The submitter included some etymological claims, in part that the term originated in the language of the Ojibwe native Americans. I find that pretty suspect, though it did appear on the site for some time before I removed it. The definition and the etymology were printed in the second edition of Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. To their credit, they did include "allegedly".

http://books.google.com/books?id=5GpLcC4a5fAC&pg=PA1120&...

I'm not too concerned about the copyright aspect, though. And actually, I'm still unclear on the extent to which dictionary definitions are copyrightable.

Re:Esquivalience by pc86 on Tuesday April 16, 2013 @09:34AM (#5557923)
I don't think dictionary definitions are. However, if I make up a word, that is copyrightable as it is my creation, or IP, or whatever term you wish to use.

Similar to putting a fake street on a map, I would think.

Re:Esquivalience by gcr on Saturday April 20, 2013 @03:30PM (#5582523)
Actually, a fake street is not copyrightable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues

    A United States federal court found that copyright traps are not
    themselves protectable by copyright. There, the court
    stated: "[t]o treat 'false' facts interspersed among actual facts
    and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one
    could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of
    reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright . . .
    . If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or
    widely disseminated." (Id. at 733)