Am 03/07/11 02:27, schrieb Juergen Weigert:

...

I think

" Registergericht: Amtsgericht Nürnberg Registernummer: HRB 16746 "

instead of "Registergericht: Nürnberg Registernummer: HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) " ) would be better.

I don't think so. "HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) " is the recommended notation for a Handelsregisternummer. If I do a search unter https://www.handelsregister.de/rp_web/mask.do?Typ=n I have to add just the normal register number (5 digits) AND chose the type of Register like "HRB" the Name/seat of the court/government agency. The hits are listed under "Amtsgericht Nürnberg HRB 16746 ". If I want to have a look in the files in Nürnberg with my one - I have to go to

Amtsgericht Nürnberg Flaschenhofstraße 35 90402 Nürnberg (Hausanschrift) (see: http://www.justiz.bayern.de/gericht/ag/n/zustand/verfahren/vf_Registersachen...) To use anything with the (aberration for the) name of the government agency *and* also to write "Registergericht: Nürnberg" makes not much sense to me. I guess you (or your recommendation) meant something like on the old wiki -> http://de.opensuse.org/index.php?title=openSUSE:Impressum&diff=cur&oldid=299... : not the use your long form *and* in addition two lines (for the government agency and for the kind register) link in new wiki: http://dewiki.opensuse.org/index.php?title=Impressum&oldid=12203 The "Registergericht" (a court acting as a part of the administration/executive/government agency which runs the register) is seated in Nürnberg and is named "Amtsgericht Nürnberg" (or "Registergericht beim Amtsgericht Nürnberg" or "Registergericht Nürnberg" - I would say that the Registergericht Nürnberg is just a devision of the Amtsgericht Nürnberg...). As a "Registergericht" it has a trade register (de: Handelsregister). So the name of the (trade) register (§ 5 TMG:"das Handelsregister, [...], in das sie eingetragen sind," // Directive 2000/31/EC Article 5 (1) d) "[...] the trade register in which the service provider is entered ... [...]") is in my view "Handelsregister beim Amtsgericht Nürnberg" (or "Handelsregister B beim Amtsgericht Nürnberg"). Why should this information be repeated in "und die entsprechende Registernummer,"//"...and his registration number..."? Something like a short sentence would in my opinion be the shortest and most understandable (and hopefully correct) form: "Eingetragen im Handelsregister beim Amtsgericht Nürnberg: HRB 16746." or "Eintragung im Handelsregister (HRB) beim Amtsgericht Nürnberg unter 16746." or something like it. I think the sense of the norm is that entries in the trade register (and therefor also the trade register itself) could be found by a (normal) user of the pages - not to give any information repeatedly so that you may not find any information.

...

3) May somebody (with the according might/privileges) change the name of the according link (on every site of the new wiki) from "Terms of site" to anything fitting like "Kontakt" or "Impressum"?

I cannot find 'Terms of site' anywhere in the footer.

Probably because the font is too small and the letters are grey on grey and "Terms of site" is blue in a line of its own. In Mozilla Firefox you could press CTRL and + to make the fonts bigger or press first CTRL and F and after that enter "Terms of site" and press at last ENTER or press CTRL and U to have a look at the source code. In other browsers the shortcuts may be others. Just have a look at the source code of http://dewiki.opensuse.org/Hauptseite with [Quote] <!-- Start: Footer --> <!-- Start: included footer part --> <div id="footer" class="container_12"> <div id="footer-legal" class="border-top grid_12"> <p>Diese Seite wurde bisher 7.247-mal abgerufen.</p><p> © 2011 Novell, Inc. and others. All content is made available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 ("GFDL") unless expressly indicated otherwise. <br/> <a href="/Terms_of_site">Terms of site</a> </p> </div> </div> <!-- End: included footer part --> <!-- End: Footer --> [/Quote] Instead I see a link

'Disclaimers' showing an empty page. I've added a redirect to 'Impressum' there.

It may be good that you patched the old wiki (which was not the subject I have written about -> see all the links on my posting/email before). But it makes no sense to use a English word in the German wiki to name a link - especially not something like this. If anyone knows the meaning of "Disclaimers" or even would think that the person responsible for the wiki would be found there - why should he use the German wiki and not the English wiki? I would just use ether "Kontakt" or "Impressum": because the Bundesgerichtshof decided (in the decision I cited and linked in my last posting) that the use of this words is no violation of the according old German norm (BGH, GRUR 2007, 159 = NJW 2006, 3633, See also: Haupt, Beck’sches Rechtsanwalts-Handbuch, 10. Auflage 2011, § 41 Internetrecht, Randnummer 55). Making the according informations only in the AGB (ca. en: Terms of site) should be not sufficient (Haupt, see above; Landgericht Berlin, Beschluss vom 17.09.2002 - 103 O 102/02, the text and more could be found on http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG%20Berlin&Datu.... ). So I do not see any need to be "creative" and try to use other words especally not (only) AGB/Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen/Nutzungsbedingungen or even English words like "Disclamers" for the German wiki.

Automatic redirects are apparently no longer supported.

If the footer uses the same syntax as the normal wiki pages - have you tried something like [target|name] for a link that has an other target than the name of the link?

http://de.opensuse.org had a german footer,

All the pages I cited in my last posting are on dewiki.... -> I think it should be clear that I meant that.

but http://dewiki.opensuse.org now has an english one. *that* needs to be addresed, not just one of the links.

Yes. Not only the naming of the link is buggy. - Also using an footer in English language at all. - Also using a license that is * old * only available in English language * only available in a version made for an US system of law (and so without an valid exclusion of liability) * was made for manuals (so somehing in one document) and not for use in a wiki * should be included with "the document" (so at least in the wiki). - Maybe also claiming "© 2011 Novell, Inc. and others" as the German "Urheberrecht" is not the same as the US "Copyright". -.... Because of that I linked to an overview of some problems in a posting before: To the second change of subject (the hole footer): Something like "Impressum, AGB und Anmerkung zum Urheberrecht/Copyright)" linked to one page or two pages used as footer might be fitting (and shorter). But I thought we could start with the deceleration of responsibility/imprint in this thread. As written before you could get an overview of the legal problems of the (German) wiki in the posing on the wiki-de list.

...

By the way: Could the size of the letters be changed to a normal size (not something like written for ants)?

The footer is repetitive material an should not consume more screen space that absolutly needed. The law does not define a minimum font size.

It says that the declaration of responsibility has to be easy to find (both the EU directive "" and the according German law "leicht erkennbar, unmittelbar erreichbar und ständig verfügbar zu halten: "). I do not know why the autor of these footers want to take risks (or wants the one responsible for the wiki to take this risk).

...

4) I do not really know why the paragraph/section "3 Notiz zum Urheberrecht" is not just on:

http://dewiki.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Urheberrecht

(instead of the content there now)?

There is a link on top of Impressum pointing to openSUSE:Urheberrecht, I consider this sufficient. You misunderstood me: I meant "instead of the content on http://dewiki.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Urheberrecht now)" -> Why not replace the content of by the content of . [I do not care if it is on one or two pages].

Is there need for such long terms (in addition to the license and the other terms/AGB)?

...

To express it _very_ moderate:

I do not think that it is really a good Idea (to try) to use terms that are made for a US system of law in (a poor) translation to German language (but not adapted to a German/European system of law).

We are a US based company, thus american law might apply.

a) Maybe also. I do not know what an US court might decide. How hight do you (pl. - all reading this list especially those with knowledge in US law) rate the chance that the current terms - harsh and claiming to be binding only in the English language version - would be _needed_ for the German language wiki? And has anyone thought about the danger for SUSE/ in using these terms for any pages that are addressing (also or especially) a German audience? b) As far as I know the Novell/SUSE are also acting on the German market. There are even laptops with SLED installed to buy in Germany. At least in these cases are consumer-to-business relations existing and in these cases I would not see any real chance to exclude the use of EU/German law. So do terms ("AGB") exit adapted to the German/EU system of law for these cases that could be used (at least partly)? c) I do rate it desirable for me if there would be an exclusion of liability that has hat least a real chance to be accepted if someone would sue a German wiki autor/transtator for giving false advice - such as it is in the versions of the CC licenses that are written in German and for the German system of law. But a impressum is in my view a good start...

Addressing a german audience, may make this wiki also subject to german law, thus adding a proper Impressum is a good thing.

If so: the impressum shall also be easy to find to fulfill the German and EU-European law ...

...

From the perspective of a german user community it is apparently desirable to have a german legal entity behind all our websites.

I do think this will also be desirable from the perspective of SUSE/Novell/Attachmate. Or at least a legal entity of _any_ system of law. Such a

legal entity just does not exist, afaik. You mentioned a GBR earlier. I cannot not confirm its existance.

A GbR is not a real legal entity and has not the advantages of a legal eternity (especially if it comes to the question of liability): - even a group of persons that are (regularly) using a car to go to work (Fahrgemeinschaft) are rated to be a GbR (Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts). - a GbR will not shield its members against personal liability I would guess that any German court would rate the openSUSE Project to be a "nichteingetragener Verein" (en ca.: not registered society/association without legal personality), see: -> § 21, § 54, §§ 705-740 (Idealverein) OR (wirtschaftlicher Verein) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/index.html translation (with § -> section) on http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/index.html You might find more information in a "Kommentar" to the BGB (like the Palandt) under § 54 BGB like in Beck'scher Online-Kommentar BGB, § 21 before Randnummer (en?: marginal note) 21 [Quote] [...] Beim nichtrechtsfähigen Idealverein haften die Mitglieder aufgrund eines institutionellen Haftungsausschlusses nicht persönlich, hingegen haften die Mitglieder des wirtschaftlichen Vereins persönlich und akzessorisch zur Vereinsschuld. [...] [/Quote] or in a decision of the Bundesgerichtshof like BGH, 30.06.2003 - II ZR 153/02 http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht... on page 4 But this is in my view not much better than a being GbR (§§ 705 BGB ff.) directly because I would not take a betting that the the openSUSE project would be rated to be an "Idealverein" and not a "wirtschaftlicher Verein" if there is no contract of foundation that says this. Compare: Beck'scher Online-Kommentar BGB, § 54 before Randnummer (en?: marginal note) 1 [Quote] Die Leistungen müssen gegen Entgelt angeboten werden, weil eine wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit grds nicht unentgeltlich ist (BayObLGZ 1985, 283 = Rpfleger 1985, 495; K. Schmidt Rpfleger 1972, 286, 294; aA BGHZ 85, 84, 93 = NJW 1983, 569; krit K. Schmidt NJW 1983, 543, 544). [/Quote] -> the Bundesgerichtshof seems to have decided once that the Verein has not to make something only for a charge. 7) By the way: On the pages of the Amtsgericht Nürnberg/Registergericht // Bavarian Department/ministry of justice I fould also a some (German) papers about the foundation of a new "Eingetragener Verein" (e. V. like KDE e. V.) -> http://www.justiz.bayern.de/gericht/ag/n/zustand/verfahren/vf_Registersachen... Have a lot of luck Martin -- - openSUSE 11.2 with GNOME 2.28.2 (or KDE 4.3.5) and Kernel Linux 2.6.31.14-0.1-desktop (or ~pae, ~default, Ubuntu 10.4 LTS 'lucid' 2.6.33-24-genetic, MS Win XP) - Samsung X20 Pentium M 740 (1730 MHz) Intel 915GM 1400x1050 - openSUSE profile: https://users.opensuse.org/show/pistazienfresser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org