Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Brazil

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-nc-nd/3.0/br/, 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-NC-ND-3.0-BR, 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 proposed

The record targets dalicc:CreativeWork, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port has no database clause at all: it neither licenses nor waives a sui generis database right, and its definition of the licensed subject matter does not name databases, so the evidence that justified adding the type to the European ports of this review group is missing here. Creative Commons licences are media neutral and the grant runs to all media and formats now known or later devised, so the type is defensible on general grounds. Proposed, as one decision over every Creative Commons port without a database clause.

info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

The modelled permissions follow the grant. Section 3 (Concessao da licenca) grants "uma licenca de abrangencia mundial, sem royalties, nao-exclusiva, perpetua (pela duracao do direito autoral aplicavel)" covering reproduction, incorporation into Obras Coletivas and distribution and public performance, and then forbids the making of derivative works outright. 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-NC-ND-4.0. cc:CommercialUse is prohibited rather than permitted, which is the NonCommercial element.

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): "Voce nao podera implicita ou explicitamente afirmar ou sugerir qualquer vinculo, patrocinio ou apoio do Autor Original, Titular de Direitos Conexos, Licenciante e/ou Partes de Atribuicao". cc:CommercialUse is prohibited. Section 4(c): the rights granted may not be exercised in a way "intencionada ou direcionada a obtencao de vantagem comercial ou compensacao monetaria privada", with the file sharing carve out where no payment changes hands. 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 "Autor Original", the "Titular de Direitos Conexos", the "Licenciante" and the "Partes de Atribuicao", and a derivative must be labelled, for example "A Obra original foi traduzida do Ingles para o Portugues". 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.

minor Rubric 3 odrl:permission proposed

dalicc:chargeDistributionFee is permitted while cc:CommercialUse is prohibited. Under the test of this port, the rights granted may not be exercised in a way "intencionada ou direcionada a obtencao de vantagem comercial ou compensacao monetaria privada", with the file sharing carve out where no payment changes hands, a pure cost recovery fee is arguable rather than plainly allowed. The statement also sits in the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 and in every NonCommercial record of the library, so this is one decision about the whole NonCommercial family rather than about this record. Not applied.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer none

dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation are quoted from the Portuguese 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 (Declaracoes, garantias e exoneracao) is a disclaimer in capitals, "O LICENCIANTE OFERECE A OBRA NO ESTADO EM QUE SE ENCONTRA (AS IS) E NAO PRESTA QUAISQUER GARANTIAS OU DECLARACOES DE QUALQUER ESPECIE RELATIVAS A OBRA", and Section 6 (Limitacao de responsabilidade) 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:Brazil, which matches the country of the legal code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/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 "impor qualquer medida tecnologica eficaz a Obra que restrinja a possibilidade do destinatario exercer os direitos concedidos a ele sob os termos desta Licenca". 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 (Terminacao): automatic termination on breach, downstream licences survive, the named sections survive. Proposed term: dalicc:terminationOnBreach. Section 8 (Outras disposicoes): 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: "Na extensao em que reconhecidos e considerados indisponiveis pela legislacao aplicavel, direitos morais nao sao afetados por esta Licenca", the deferring formula, which in Brazilian law reaches a long and non waivable list. 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 has a single royalty paragraph, and it is the only clause in this review group that names collecting societies: the Licensor reserves the right to collect royalties individually or, where it is a member of a collective management society, "por exemplo, ECAD, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC", through that society, for any exercise of the rights that is for a commercial purpose or use as defined in the NonCommercial clause. 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-NC-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, while odrl:target still differs by dcmitype:Dataset. 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-NC-ND element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.

major Rubric 7 dalicc:terminatesOnBreach applied

The termination clause of this port reads: "Esta Licença e os direitos aqui concedidos terminarão automaticamente no caso de qualquer violação dos termos desta Licença por Você." 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: "Os direitos acima incluem o direito de fazer as modificacoes que forem tecnicamente necessarias para exercer os direitos em outras midias, meios e formatos, vedado contudo, o direito de fazer Obras Derivadas" (the right to make derivative works is forbidden). The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-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. "Voce nao pode sublicenciar a Obra." 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.