On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 16:29, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > I'd think so. Certainly the copyright is valid, and people can and do > > release, > > Why is it certain? The Berne convention says so, that'd be why the copyright is valid. And if it isn't valid, then its in the public domain. > A book under pseudonym is not anonym. The fact that you do not know > what is the real identity of Emile Ajar does not make of his books > published by an anonymous. Sure. There are books published anonymously as well, come to think of it. A quick Amazon.com search yielded quite a few books by Anonymous. > > > You quoted the GFDL 4b: > > List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities > responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified > Version, .... > > Well, what makes you think that in this case pseudonyms would not be > allowed? I don't think a pseudonym or "anonymous" is a "person." Now, if we can sufficiently abuse "entities", that might work. For example, can I decide to form the "Association of Associated Anonymous Hackers" to release my changes to a single document, or does an "entity" have to be a legal entity, such as a corporation? > If nobody is able to confirm that he granted some rights over a work > (because nobody recognize being author of this work), there is no > reason to believe that you have some rights over this work. If the work itself contains the notice that I am granted those rights, then there is some reason to believe so. Adding an additional line "Copyright 2003 Anthony DeRobertis" gives you no more real assurance that I am legally authorized to grant the license.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part