Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Czechia

minor Rubric 1 dct:source applied

The record carried cc:legalcode but no dct:source. The legal code page states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/cz/, 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-SA-3.0-CZ, which the SPDX licence list does not define, so no identifier was invented. None of the forty two records in this review group has an SPDX identifier.

minor Rubric 1 dct:title applied

The dct:title literal ended in a space, which the library list and the search index carry through. Removed. The same defect sits on the NonCommercial-ShareAlike record of every port in this review group.

minor Rubric 2 odrl:target applied

The record targeted dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port settles database rights expressly: the last paragraph of Article 3 waives the special right of the maker of a database in full, "poskytovatel se takoveho prava k Dilu v celem rozsahu vzdava", and Article 4(e) adds that the restrictions of 4(a) to 4(d) do not apply to the parts of the Work that fall under the definition only because of that right. Beyond that, the definition of "dilo" in Article 1 ends with "Za dila jsou povazovany tez databaze" (databases are also considered works) and names computer programs among the licensed subject matter. 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. The ports in this review group whose text has no database clause at all keep the proposal.

info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

The modelled permissions follow the grant. Article 3 grants "bezuplatnou, mnozstevne a mistne neomezenou, nevyhradni a casove neomezenou (na celou dobu trvani prav k Dilu) licenci" (a free of charge licence unlimited in quantity and place, non-exclusive, and unlimited in time for the whole duration of the rights in the Work), covering reproduction, incorporation into collective works, adaptation of the Work and reproduction of the adapted Work where the change is apparent, and distribution and communication to the public of the Work and of the adapted Work, on all carriers and in all formats. The record models this as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:modify, odrl:derive, cc:DerivativeWorks and dalicc:ModifiedWorks.

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. 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 around it. Article 4(d): without prior written consent the licensee may not present the Work in a way "ktery by primo ci neprimo vyvolal dojem ucasti nebo jine formy podpory" by the named persons.

info Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition none

cc:CommercialUse is prohibited, as the NonCommercial element requires. Article 4(c): the rights cover only uses "jejichz primarnim ucelem neni ziskani primeho nebo neprimeho obchodniho prospechu nebo jineho penezniho plneni", with the file sharing exception.

minor Rubric 3 odrl:permission proposed

The record permits dalicc:chargeDistributionFee while prohibiting cc:CommercialUse. The vocabulary defines the term narrowly as a fee covering the act of providing the work, which is arguable under the commercial advantage test of this port, but the statement also sits in the 4.0 International parent and in all one hundred and forty five NonCommercial records of the library, so it is one decision about the whole NonCommercial family rather than about this record.

info Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

The attribution and notice duties are present and supported: the licence requires a copy of, or the URI for, the licence with every copy shared, that the notices referring to the licence and to the warranty clause be kept intact, and that credit be given to the author and to any attribution parties. dalicc:modificationNotice is supported by the duty to take reasonable steps to label a change. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by distributing or communicating the work to the public rather than by private use. In this port the parties are "poskytovatel" and "nabyvatel", the adapted work is "upravene Dilo", and Article 3 adds that "Nabyvatel neni povinen poskytnutou licenci vyuzit" (the licensee is not obliged to use the licence).

info Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

cc:ShareAlike is a set level duty, which matches the licence: the share alike condition bites on derivative works rather than on a single permission. The clause accepts this licence agreement, a later version of it with the same licence elements, or version 3.0 or higher of a Creative Commons agreement for the legal order of another state or of Creative Commons Unported with the same licence elements, which the model cannot express, so the record cannot say that a differently ported licence of the same element set satisfies the duty.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer none

dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation are quoted verbatim from the Czech text of this port and not from the English unported version. They are Article 5 (Odpovednost za vady, liability for defects) and Article 6 (Odpovednost za skodu, liability for damage), each in its own field, checked sentence by sentence against the legal code.

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.

info Rubric 7 cc:jurisdiction none

cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Czechia, which matches the country of the legal code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/cz/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant for the duration of the applicable copyright. Article 8 ends with a choice of law: "Pokud se smluvni strany nedohodnou jinak, ridi se pravni vztahy podle tohoto ujednani pravem Ceske republiky." This is the only port in the review group that chooses a governing law. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit: the grant itself is worldwide.

gap Rubric 8 odrl:prohibition none

The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. Article 4(a): "nesmi nabyvatel pouzit zadne technicke prostredky ochrany, ktere by omezovaly opravneni dalsich osob v uziti Dila v souladu s timto ujednanim". 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

The automatic termination of the licence on breach, with the survival of the definitions, the warranty and liability clauses and the miscellaneous provisions, has no vocabulary term. Proposed term: dalicc:terminationOnBreach. The direct licence that the licensor offers to every recipient of the work has none either. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Moral rights have no vocabulary term. Article 4: "Timto ujednanim nejsou dotcena osobnostni prava autora, pokud prislusny pravni rad jejich ochranu uznava", adding that nobody may claim authorship and that the Work may only be used in a way that does not lower its value. 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. Article 4(f) leaves untouched the remuneration rights the licensor cannot waive, in particular the rights under mandatory collective administration, leaves untouched the remuneration for other than non-commercial use, and waives the rest. Proposed term: dalicc:royaltyCollectionReserved, with a counterpart for the waiver. Not expressible today, and it is one of the few places where the ports of one version really differ from each other.

gap Rubric 8 odrl:duty none

The share alike duty that accepts a later version of the same licence or another jurisdiction port with the same licence elements cannot be expressed. Proposed term: a property on the cc:ShareAlike duty, for example dalicc:shareAlikeAccepts.

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-SA-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, the same set level duties, 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-NC-SA 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: the last paragraph of Article 3 waives the special right of the maker of a database in full, "poskytovatel se takoveho prava k Dilu v celem rozsahu vzdava", and the definition of dilo in Article 1 ends with "Za dila jsou povazovany tez databaze", and Article 4(e) adds that the restrictions of 4(a) to 4(d) do not apply to the parts of the Work that fall under the definition only because of that 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-NC-SA-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. The cc:ShareAlike duty of this record sits at the level of the odrl:Set and still reaches this permission in the model; the term that would take the conditions off the database layer does not exist, and the gap finding of this review still records that. 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: "Nabyvateli zaniká licence k Dílu podle tohoto ujednání okamžikem, kdy nabyvatel poruší podmínky tohoto ujednání." 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:prohibition

The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. Article 4(a): "Nabyvatel neni opravnen poskytovat podlicenci k Dilu." 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 forty two 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.