Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 3.0 Luxembourg

minor Rubric 1 dct:source applied

The record carried cc:legalcode but no dct:source. The legal code page of this port states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/lu/, and the six 4.0 International parents carry exactly that pair, legal code plus deed. Added.

info Rubric 1 spdx:licenseId none

SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal code URL implies CC-BY-ND-3.0-LU, which the SPDX licence list does not define, so none was invented. Of the thirty five records in this review group only the six German ones take an SPDX identifier.

minor Rubric 2 odrl:target applied

The record targeted dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port settles the sui generis database right expressly. Section 3 grants "Lorsque l'Oeuvre est une base de donnees, extraire et reutiliser des parties substantielles de l'Oeuvre" and closes with "Si le Donneur de Licence est le titulaire de droits de base de donnees sui generis suivant la transposition en droit national de la Directive Europeenne sur les Bases de Donnees, le Donneur de Licence renonce a ces droits". Section 4(f) adds that the restrictions of 4(a) and 4(b) do not apply to the parts of an Oeuvre that fall inside the definition only because they are governed by that sui generis right. Because the legal text names databases as licensed subject matter and disposes of the database maker's right in the grant itself, dcmitype:Dataset was added here rather than left as a proposal, which is how the same question was decided for the Portuguese, Czech and Azerbaijani ports. The ports in this review group whose text has no database clause at all, Ecuador and Brazil, keep the proposal.

info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

The modelled permissions follow the grant. Section 3 (Octroi de la Licence) grants "une licence mondiale, gratuite, non exclusive et perpetuelle (pour la duree du droit d'auteur applicable)" covering reproduction, incorporation into Collections, distribution and public performance, and the technical modifications needed to exercise those rights, and then says in so many words that nothing further may be done. The record models this as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present and dalicc:ModifiedWorks, with odrl:derive and cc:DerivativeWorks moved to odrl:prohibition, which is the NoDerivatives pattern of the 4.0 parent CC-BY-ND-4.0. cc:CommercialUse is permitted, which follows from this element set carrying no commercial restriction.

info Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition none

dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which the licence supports: the work may be shared only under the terms of this licence and the licensee may not offer or impose terms that alter or restrict it or the rights of downstream recipients. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which the 3.0 text supports better than the 2.0 text did, because the no endorsement rule sits in the licence body rather than in the Creative Commons notice printed around it. Section 4(d): the Licensee may not assert or imply any connection, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, the Licensor or the attribution parties without their separate, express, prior written permission. odrl:derive and cc:DerivativeWorks are prohibited, which matches the NoDerivatives grant.

info Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

The attribution and notice duties are present and supported: the licence requires a copy of the licence or its URI with every copy shared, that the notices referring to the licence and to the warranty clause be kept intact, and that credit be given, and in this port credit is owed to the "Auteur Original", to the Licensor and to the "Parties Concernees par l'Attribution", and a translation must be labelled, for example "l'oeuvre originale a ete traduite de l'anglais vers l'espagnol". The duties hang on odrl:distribute, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by distributing or communicating the work to the public rather than by private use. In this element set the record still hangs a dalicc:modificationNotice duty on odrl:modify, which is the modelling defect recorded above.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer none

dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation are quoted from the French text of this port and not from the English unported version, each holds its own clause and nothing of the other, and both were checked sentence by sentence against the legal code. Section 5 (Declarations, garanties et exonerations de responsabilite) is a plain disclaimer in capitals, "LE DONNEUR DE LICENCE PROPOSE L'OEUVRE EN L'ETAT ET NE FORMULE AUCUNE GARANTIE NI DECLARATION DE QUELQUE NATURE QUE CE SOIT", and Section 6 (Limitation de la responsabilite) is the liability clause. Each sits in its own field.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:additionalClauses none

The clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry are not visible in the record: the reservation of unnamed rights, the direct licence that every recipient receives from the licensor, the automatic termination on breach with the survival list, the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs, and the royalty collection arrangements. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way, so this is a family observation rather than a defect of this record.

info Rubric 7 cc:jurisdiction none

cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Luxembourg, which matches the country of the legal code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/lu/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant for the duration of the applicable copyright. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit: the grant itself is worldwide. The port names no governing law.

gap Rubric 8 odrl:prohibition none

The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. Section 4(a): the Licensee may not distribute or publicly perform the Work with "de mesures techniques de protection sur l'Oeuvre qui" restrict the recipient in exercising the rights granted. Proposed term: dalicc:applyTechnicalProtectionMeasures, an odrl:Action to be used as an odrl:Prohibition. Not modelled, because bending an existing term would be worse than the gap.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Two clauses of the licence body have no vocabulary term. Section 7 (Fin de la Licence): automatic termination on breach, downstream licences survive, the named sections survive. Proposed term: dalicc:terminationOnBreach. Section 8: every distribution or public performance carries an offer of a licence from the Licensor to the recipient on the same terms. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Moral rights have no vocabulary term, in either direction. Section 4(g): "Les droits moraux, dans la mesure ou ils sont reconnus par le droit national applicable, de la personne physique qui est l'Auteur Original de l'Oeuvre ou des personnes physiques qui sont les Auteurs Originaux de l'Oeuvre, ne sont pas affectes par la presente Licence", the deferring formula, with a pointer to it already in the definitions section. Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction for a clause that binds the licensee and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion for one in which the licensor undertakes not to assert them.

gap Rubric 8 record none

The royalty collection arrangement has no vocabulary term. Section 4(e) splits royalty collection three ways, a non waivable statutory licence, a waivable statutory licence and voluntary collective management through "un organisme de gestion de droits qui gere les regimes de licence facultatifs", reserved for uses other than non commercial in the NonCommercial element sets. No society is named. Proposed term: dalicc:royaltyCollectionReserved, with a counterpart for the waiver. It is one of the few places where the ports of one version really differ from each other.

info Rubric 9 record none

The consistency check with the forty one axioms of licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_default.ttl reports no conflict, before and after the corrections, and the pre review baseline listed none for this record either.

info Rubric 10 record none

Port of CC-BY-ND-4.0, the 4.0 International record of the same element set. The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties, and the same asset types too, now that the database clause of this port has brought dcmitype:Dataset into odrl:target. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text, the clause texts and the version specific clauses of 3.0 that the model does not carry, chiefly the express prohibition of sublicensing, the technological measures clause, the royalty collection arrangement and the moral rights clause. The compatibility checker cannot tell this record from the other records of the BY-ND element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.

major Rubric 3 odrl:permission applied

The record said nothing about the sui generis database right although the port's own text settles it, which the rubric 2 finding of this review read off the legal code: Section 3 grants "Lorsque l'Oeuvre est une base de donnees, extraire et reutiliser des parties substantielles de l'Oeuvre" and closes with "Si le Donneur de Licence est le titulaire de droits de base de donnees sui generis suivant la transposition en droit national de la Directive Europeenne sur les Bases de Donnees, le Donneur de Licence renonce a ces droits", and Section 4(f) adds that the restrictions of 4(a) and 4(b) do not apply to the parts of an Oeuvre that fall inside the definition only because they are governed by that sui generis right. Exercising that right is therefore permitted by this licence and dalicc:suiGenerisDatabaseRights is now a permission of the record. It carries no duty, which is where the 3.0 ports part company with the 4.0 text their parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 models: Section 4(c) of 4.0 carries the conditions of Section 3(a) over to the database layer, while this port takes its own restrictions off the material that qualifies only under the database right. Under the proposed default rule eu-sui-generis-db of licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_eu.ttl the database right is not granted unless the licence grants it, so a record that is silent reads as a licence that keeps the right back, which this text contradicts.

major Rubric 7 dalicc:terminatesOnBreach applied

The termination clause of this port reads: "La présente Licence ainsi que les droits concédés en vertu des présentes seront automatiquement résiliés en cas de violation de Votre part des conditions de la présente Licence." The licence ends automatically on a breach and this version of the text has no reinstatement clause, so dalicc:terminatesOnBreach is true and no dalicc:curePeriod is written, as on the unported record of the same version.

settled odrl:permission

A NoDerivatives record that permits modification. The record permits odrl:modify with an attribution, notice and modification notice duty, and permits dalicc:ModifiedWorks, while the licence allows only the technically necessary format changes: Section 3 of the by-nd and by-nc-nd legal code: "Les droits susmentionnes incluent le droit d'apporter toutes les modifications requises sur un plan technique afin de pouvoir exercer les droits sur d'autres supports et dans d'autres formats, mais autrement, Vous n'avez pas le droit de creer des Adaptations de l'Oeuvre". The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 is modelled the same way and its own review record carries the same finding, so this belongs in one sweep over every NoDerivatives record of the library rather than in a change to this file. Recorded as major because the text of this port is explicit. Not applied, pending the association's decision.

settled odrl:prohibition

The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. "Vous ne pouvez pas sous-licencier l'Oeuvre." Section 4(a). The vocabulary already has dalicc:sublicense, but no record in the library uses it and its skos:note says so, and the same sentence stands in every Creative Commons 2.0 and 3.0 record, so adding it to the thirty five ports of this review group alone would split the compatibility behaviour of one family. Proposed as one library wide correction, together with an update of the vocabulary note. Other review groups made the same recommendation.