对Cola，似乎是人民大学的项目成员的回复……
I don’t agree with Cola’s argue at this topic.
This is not the problem of being "hegemonic" or not. I am sure no one here will decrease the endeavor of improving the development of CCChina because of "interest".
This is not the problem of whether will we "disseminate" the CC China mainland. Of course we will. I have done it for about two years and have never sought for any "interests". I believe most of persons here are same even the name is something like ZHI SHI GONG XIANG. I believe the founder of this group don’t wish here turns to an ads. program that broadcasting good news only, like C*TV. I suppose all members here are at least understand what is CC, so we come here just for discussing, commenting and contributing – if you need any help.
Also, this is not the problem of "attitudes". If one does not pay attention to the CC, or if one does not support the CC, he will not discuss its name here.
Finally, this is not the problem of which translation is PHILOGICALLY correct, since you are not a translator of literature but the adaptor of a legitimate or lawful treaty in specific jurisprudence.
The first problem "discovered" and waiting for "resolving" is: In China’s Copyright Act, "CHUANG ZUO" has been used as a legal word for 26 times, but there is no "ZHISHI" in the Act. Why a lawful document does not use "legal" word?
Yes, CCChina 2.5 has been integrated into the process of CC, but that don’t mean "ZHI SHI GONG XIANG" can live forever even it had been proved a improper translation, unless there is no discussion, and consequently, Ver. 2.5 becomes the last version of CCChina.
对Gene Zhang 的回复：（不过这孩子的东西写得真有意思，自叹不如……）
这不是做秀不做秀的问题，也不是钻不钻牛角尖的事。看了你的blog很喜欢，不知道你是不是学法律的。
但无论如何，你都应知道，这是一份法律文件的名字。所以当然是力求其精确性，而非“显得”怎么样，要显得权威，为什么不翻译成“大同世界”？
不是说现在大家最后都认为这个名字不对，所有2.5的工作就没有意义，真正会让它没意义的，是“不讨论这个名字对不对”。
—————————
哦……忽然想起来，我在这里起劲地着急，有什么用呢？又忘了那句古训——屁股决定脑袋……
