Re: adobe/o'reillly publishing?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>
> i18n@... wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Then you _are_ the one who questioned the phrase, and when you deny it,
> > > you are lying.
> > >
> > > Everything you write here is available at the yahoo groups site.
> >
> > Good, then quote me on it. Post the url too :)
>
> Here's the proof that it was "Barry" who didn't know what "work for
> hire" means. Given the date of my posting (and I looked at every one of
> mine since Tuesday to find it), anyone can easily visit the yahoo groups
> page and find the full text of his posting:
>
> > Subject: Re: adobe/o'reillly publishing?
> > Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:00:56 -0400
> > From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > Reply-To: qalam@yahoogroups.com
> > To: qalam@yahoogroups.com
> > References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14
> >
> >
> > i18n@... wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to read farther than p. iv to know for your very own
> > > > self. It's a "work for hire."
> > >
> > > What is a work for hire? Each section is hired by you? The book itself
> > > is hired by OUP?

It occurs to me that this is an indication that "Barry" is British and
not American, since it appears to use the word "hire" of things rather
than people -- here we "rent" cars, there they "hire" them.

The surface meaning of "work for hire" is that someone hires authors to
write works, not that someone "hires" sections or a book, which is
uninterpretable.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...