[OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

[Simon Poole]

I was referring to the 1.2.4 French translation

http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/c/c2/2011-03-08_OSM_Contributor_Terms_1.2.4_FrenchTranslation.pdf

What you have is the translation of 1.0.

The issue wrt to the wording is if to use a strong "must not infringe" 
vs. a weak "should not infringe" (in the German translation).

Simon


Am 24.03.2011 10:40, schrieb Francis Davey:
> On 24 March 2011 09:29, Francis Davey<fjmd1a at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> In context (which is how all contracts are read) it clearly means that
>> the purpose of the contract is to ensure that the contribution of data
>> does not infringe and to that end the contributor gives a warranty as
>> to their state of knowledge about their right to authorize OSMF to do
>> certain things. This is the 1.2.4 version.
> The French version:
>
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
>
> Clearly says something quite different as far as I can see, namely
> that the contributor agrees _only_ to add content for which they own
> the intellectual property.
>
> There's no clause that says which language contributor terms prevails
> - presumably whichever a contributor agrees to - so there are a
> multiplicity of agreements.
>
> Also puzzling is the distinction in clause 1. The first sentence says:
>
> "Dans le cas où des Contenus comprennent des éléments soumis à un
> droit d’auteur, Vous acceptez de n’ajouter que des Contenus dont Vous
> possédez la propriété intellectuelle."
>
> But "droit d'auteur" does not (as I understand the term) include
> database right. Its un droit des producteurs de bases de données
> rather than un droit d'auteur (forgive my atrocious French - its been
> nearly 30 years since I studied it). "propriété intellectuelle" is a
> much wider term, which includes industrial property.
>
> Maybe there's a good reason for this wording and I'm not either French
> or a French lawyer.
>