On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 03:32:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > The latter (clauses 4b and 4i) fails the Chinese Dissident test.
Here's the language in question: B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement. I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence. 4b allows people to opt out and specifically allows "entities" to be authors -- it's clear that these "entities" don't need to have the same name as the individuals who compose the "entities". 4i refers back to 4b. Is there some risk to chinese dissendents who use pseudonyms? > Actually, that could use more publicity; not many people seem to be > aware of it. It's mentioned in Manoj's draft position statement, but > probably ought to be brought out into the summary at the start. Manoj? Given that this mention doesn't require that the author be recognizable, I don't see that it fails this test. -- Raul
