Creative Commons - Belgium

[Hannelore Dekeyser <hannelore.dekeyser AT law.kuleuven.ac.be>]

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