Francis Davey wrote:
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).
Nearly 20 years here, but FWIW,
On 24 March 2011 09:46, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Francis Davey wrote:
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
Francis Davey wrote:
I hope that makes sense and is not too mad.
Absolutely. I guess what the Wikipedia article tells us is that informally
(if incorrectly) one is often called the other and that, perhaps, is where
the confusion in the French translation lies.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[some stuff]
Apparently CT 1.2.4 in French have just this moment gone live:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
On 24 March 2011 13:13, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
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
On 24 March 2011 13:27, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
Excellent. Its nice not to have to work from PDF's.
--
Francis Davey
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 3/24/2011 5:40 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
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.
I am
Francis, have a nice holiday.
Simon
PS: I'm actually completly with you on the interpretation, the issue is
that we have a large body of mappers that are German CS students, that
just love arguing subtle points, and in formal specifications must,
shall, should, etc. have very different
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24/03/11 13:13, Simon Poole wrote:
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).
This would be an issue if the document stated that it uses the
definitions
