Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-be - [Cc-be] Art. 8: language and content remarks.

cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons - Belgium

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hannelore Dekeyser <hannelore.dekeyser AT law.kuleuven.ac.be>
  • To: cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Cc-be] Art. 8: language and content remarks.
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:34:28 +0100

Hi all,

I have read through the last part of the licence, and I have a few remarks. As the time left to discuss is short, I have put both language and content remarks in this post.

Art. 8

a) and b)

CCPL: Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers _to the recipient_ a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

BE-CCPL.fr: Lorsque vous prêtez, distribuez l'oeuvre ou une oeuvre collective, la communiquez ou la mettez à disposititon du public, le donneur de licence offre au _destinataire de cette distribution ou communication_ une licence...

BE-CCPL.nl: Telkens u het werk of een collectief werk uitleent, verspreidt, meedeelt of ter beschikking stelf aan het publiek, verleent de licentiegever aan de _ontvanger van deze verspreiding of mededeling een licentie_ ...

BE-CCPL.eng: Each time you lend, distribute, communicate to the public or make available to the public the work or a collective work, the licensor offers to the _recipient_ a license to the werk

The english translation (BE-CCPL.eng) does not reflect that it is the recipient of the distribution or communication in the French and Dutch text.

Is it necessary to add that it is the recipient of the distribution or communication and not just the recipient.
This gives the impression that the person to whom you lend the work does not receive a licence.
IP law specialists may know this is wrong, but the general public may be confused.

Personally, I think 'destinataire de l'Oeuvre en question'
and 'bestemmeling van werk in kwestie' could be used.

The word 'ontvanger' sound a bit akward in this context.
'Bestemmeling' or 'begunstigde' are other options.

BE-CCPL.fr*: Lorsque vous prêtez, distribuez l'oeuvre ou une oeuvre collective, la communiquez ou la mettez à disposititon du public, le donneur de licence offre au _destinataire de l'oeuvre en question_ une licence...

BE-CCPL.nl: Telkens u het werk of een collectief werk uitleent, verspreidt, meedeelt of ter beschikking stelf aan het publiek, verleent de licentiegever aan de _bestemmeling van het werk in kwestie_ ...

BE-CCPL.eng: Each time you lend, distribute, communicate to the public or make available to the public the work or a collective work, the licensor offers to the _recipient of the work in question_ a license to the werk

The same holds for art. 8 b)

c)
Typo:
BE-CCPL.nl: krachten

The english translation does not reflect the Dutch and French texts exactly in my opinion. There is no 'reform' but 'interpretation' and the notion minimal does not appear.

BE-CCPL.eng*: In this case, without requiring any action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be interpreted in a way that safeguards it's validity and applicability.

Reform of the agreement is not possible in Belgian law, inasfar as it is a contract. This is usually the case, as was discussed in an earlier thread.

Is it necessary to add that such diverting interpretation must be kept to a minimum?

BE-CCPL.nl*: In dit geval zal, ..., een dergelijke bepaling op een zodanige wijze geïnterpreteerd worden dat haar geldigheid en afdwingbaarheid gevrijwaard blijven, _voor zover dit strikt noodzakelijk is_.

d)
Typo:
BE-CCPL.nl: schriftelijke overeenkomst dat
overeenkomst die?

Of: overeenkomst ondertekend door de partij ...

e)
This is a four-corners-clause. This license document contains all the obligations of the party.
I don't know of any standard translation for this in either Dutch or French.

I do have some concerns about the current translation. In art. 8 d, it says that waiver of provisions or consent to breech is only possible
upon written and signed agreement between the parties.
In art. 8 e, it says that this Licence is the ONLY contract between the parties with regard to this work. This seems contradictory to me.
The original wording appears to allow such other contracts, while the translated version appears not to.

BE-CCPL.nl*: Deze Licentie bevat de volledige overeenkomst tussen de partijen met betrekking tot het werk in kwestie, met uitsluiting van elke ander document of overeenkomst van welke aard ook dat niet hier gespecifieerd is
BE-CCPL.fr*: Cette licence contient l'accord complète entre les parties relative à l'oeuvre en question, à l'exclusion de toute autre document ou accord, quelle qu'en soit la forme, qui n'est pas specifiée ici.

This way, the agreements specified in art. 8 d) are taken into account, others are not.

Furhter on:
CCPL: Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication _from_ You.

This is one-way traffic. The Dutch and French translations refer to two-way traffic, this is not reflected in the English translation.

Be-CCPL.nl*: ... geen enkele bijkomende verplichting die voorvloeit uit enige communicatie _afkomstig van_ U.
BE-CCPL.fr*: ... aucune autre obligation qui apparaîtrait dans toute correspondance ou échange _émis par Vous_.

Grammar mistake:
BE-CCPL.eng*: ... There is no agreement or document of any kind ...

--

All done :-)


Hannelore

--
Hannelore Dekeyser
Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology
Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri



  • [Cc-be] Art. 8: language and content remarks., Hannelore Dekeyser, 11/26/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page