DEVELOPMENT VERSION: This is an experimental DALICC environment. Features, data and APIs may change or be reset without notice. A stable version of this service, with a potentially different feature set, will be made available soon at dalicc.net.

2026

Open Supreme Court Licence

Edition of UK Open Government License for Public Sector Information. Another body issued the same license text under its own name, in the same legal system.

Also known as Open Supreme Court Licence v1.0, Open Supreme Court Licence version 1.0, UK Open Supreme Court Licence v1.0, UK Open Supreme Court Licence version 1.0.

Commercial use
allowed
Share alike
not required
Attribution
required (keep the copyright and license notices)
Compare with… Add to the compatibility check Download JSON-LD Turtle RDF/XML Text

Write this as a license text (needs an account) DALICC reads the model above and writes what it permits, requires and prohibits in plain English. Without an account, the Text download above writes the model out from the vocabulary.

Canonical URI https://dalicc.net/licenselibrary/OpenSupremeCourtLicence

Permissions

  • Change license by library convention Library convention: family rule 15: Permissive records permit relicensing. Replacing the license of the work, or of an adaptation, with another license, or changing its terms.

    Duties

    • Use a compliant license by library convention Library convention: family rule 15: Permissive records permit relicensing. Choosing a replacement license that stays compliant with the terms of the original license.
  • Charge distribution fee from the text Charging a fee for the act of providing a copy of the work to someone else.
  • Charge license fee from the text Charging a fee for granting someone a license to the work.
  • Commercial use from the text Using the work to generate income, directly or indirectly, for example by selling it or by using it in advertising.
  • Derivative works from the text Distributing an adaptation of the work and making it available to the public.

    Duties

    • Attribution from the text Giving credit to the copyright holders or authors of the work, in the form the licensor asks for.
    • Notice from the text Notice: keeping the license and copyright notices with every copy.
  • Derive from the text Creating a new work from the work, such as a translation, adaptation or arrangement of it or of a part of it.
  • Display from the text Showing the work to the public without making a copy the viewer keeps.
  • Distribute from the text Providing copies of the work to the public or to anyone else.

    Duties

    • Attribution from the text Giving credit to the copyright holders or authors of the work, in the form the licensor asks for.
    • Notice from the text Notice: keeping the license and copyright notices with every copy.
  • Extract or reuse a substantial part of a database from the text Extracting or reusing all or a substantial part of the contents of a database that the sui generis database right protects.
  • Grant use from the text Granting third parties the right to use the work.
  • Modified works from the text Distributing a modified version of the work that does not amount to a new, derivative work.
  • Modify from the text Altering the work, for example by updating it, without creating a new work; an alteration that creates a new work is Derive.
  • No-warranty notice from the text Attaching a notice that the work is provided without any warranty.
  • Present from the text Performing the work in public, including by broadcast or other communication to the public.
  • Reproduce from the text Making copies of the work in any form.

Prohibitions

  • Promote from the text Not permitted: Promote. Using the name or trademarks of the licensor or of contributors to endorse or promote a product.

License-wide duties

This license states no duties that apply to the work as a whole.

What applies by default

The statements above are the library's reading of this license: each is marked with the sentence it rests on, or as a library convention where the text is not explicit. The statements below are the ones the DALICC reasoner supplies for acts the license says nothing about, from the default rules of the dependency graph it reasons with. Each one names the legal source it rests on. None of it is in the record.

No default rule of that graph reaches this license: it speaks about every act the rules are about.

Clauses

Warranty disclaimer

The Information is licensed ‘as is’ and the Licensor excludes all representations, warranties, obligations and liabilities in relation to the Information to the maximum extent permitted by law. The Licensor is not liable for any errors or omissions in the Information and shall not be liable for any loss, injury or damage of any kind caused by its use. The Licensor does not guarantee the continued supply of the Information.

Additional clauses

You must (where you copy, publish, distribute, transmit, adapt or exploit the Information): ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that the Licensor endorses you or your use of the Information; ensure that you (i) do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source; (ii) do not present the Information in a way that does not have regard to the dignity of the Court and to its function as a working body; and (iii) do not use it in any way that jeopardises the proper administration of justice; ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 or is otherwise unlawful.

Info

Target asset types
Creative work (i.e. text, picture, sound, movie), Dataset, Software
Region / jurisdiction
Worldwide
Validity
Perpetual
Source
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-supreme-court-licence/version/1/open-supreme-court-licence-version-1.0.pdf
Legal code
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-supreme-court-licence/version/1/open-supreme-court-licence-version-1.0.pdf
This description is published under
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Publisher
The National Archives UK
Attribution name
UK Supreme Court
SPDX identifier
Open-Supreme-Court-Licence (provisional, the record declares none)
DALICC identifier
OpenSupremeCourtLicence

This record is published under CC BY 4.0. Credit it as: DALICC License Library, DALICC - Verein zur Förderung der Rechtssicherheit in der Datenbewirtschaftung, https://dalicc.net, CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The license it describes belongs to its publisher.

Use this license

Everything below is generated from this record. Replace the example address with the address of your own work.

JSON sidecar 

{
  "license-uri": "https://dalicc.net/licenselibrary/OpenSupremeCourtLicence",
  "license-title": "Open Supreme Court Licence",
  "spdx-id": null,
  "attribution": "Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holder]",
  "asset": null,
  "generated-by": "DALICC"
}

RDF, Turtle 

@prefix cc: <http://creativecommons.org/ns#> .

<https://example.org/my-work>
    cc:license <https://dalicc.net/licenselibrary/OpenSupremeCourtLicence> .

RDF, JSON-LD 

{
  "@context": {
    "cc": "http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
  },
  "@id": "https://example.org/my-work",
  "cc:license": {
    "@id": "https://dalicc.net/licenselibrary/OpenSupremeCourtLicence"
  }
}

HTML attribution 

<p>This work is licensed under <a href="https://dalicc.net/licenselibrary/OpenSupremeCourtLicence" rel="license">Open Supreme Court Licence</a>.</p>

This license asks for attribution, so the credit line is part of it.

Badge DALICC badge for Open Supreme Court Licence

Markdown 

[![License: Open Supreme Court Licence](https://dalicc.net/license-library/OpenSupremeCourtLicence/badge.svg)](https://dalicc.net/license-library/OpenSupremeCourtLicence)

HTML 

<a href="https://dalicc.net/license-library/OpenSupremeCourtLicence"><img src="https://dalicc.net/license-library/OpenSupremeCourtLicence/badge.svg" alt="License: Open Supreme Court Licence"></a>

Review

Status
Reviewed against the license text
Last checked
2026-09-15
Reviewer
Giray Havur
Verdict
corrected during the review
Record changed since this review
yes (version 2, 2026-09-24)
Findings
14 recorded, 4 applied to the record, 0 proposed, 2 settled in a later version

The legal text was listed as unavailable before the review because it is published only as a PDF. It was fetched and converted for this review, so the record could be checked against the text after all. The licence is the Open Government Licence pattern with four extra conditions specific to court information. Applied: the licence-notice duty, the modified-works permission and the extra conditions as clause text.

12 findings

  • info Rubric 1 spdx:licenseId none

    SPDX has no entry for this licence, so no identifier was invented. cc:legalcode and dct:source point at the PDF of version 1.0 at the National Archives and both resolve; the PDF is what was read for this review.

  • info Rubric 2 odrl:target none

    The asset collection is dalicc:CreativeWork, dcmitype:Dataset and dcmitype:Software. The family-rule baseline flags the software type on the National Archives records as suspect; the text settles it in favour of keeping it: the licence defines "Information" as "information protected by copyright or by database right (for example, literary and artistic works, content, data and source code)", the same definition as OGL 3.0, so source code is expressly in scope.

  • info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

    The permissions follow the freedoms list: copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information; adapt the Information; and exploit it commercially and non-commercially. odrl:grantUse, dalicc:chargeDistributionFee and dalicc:chargeLicenseFee all rest on the commercial exploitation freedom and on the absence of any onward-licensing restriction. dalicc:noWarrantyNotice rests on the no-warranty section.

  • major Rubric 3 odrl:permission applied

    dalicc:ModifiedWorks, distributing a modified version and making it available to the public, was missing although the licence permits adapting the Information and publishing, distributing and transmitting it in the same list, and the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 carries the permission on the identical wording. Added.

  • major Rubric 5 odrl:duty applied

    The licence requires two things when the information is used and the record modelled only one. Section "You must (where you do any of the above)": "acknowledge the source of the Information by including the following attribution statement and, where possible, provide a link to this licence; Contains Supreme Court information licensed under the Open Supreme Court Licence v1.0." cc:Attribution was attached to cc:DerivativeWorks and odrl:distribute; cc:Notice was missing everywhere, although the attribution statement is itself a licence notice and the licence asks for a link to itself. Added next to cc:Attribution in both permissions, which is how the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 models the same sentence.

  • minor Rubric 6 dalicc:additionalClauses applied

    The licence carries four conditions that no deontic term can express and the record carried none of them: the non-endorsement rule, the duty not to mislead or misrepresent the information or its source, the duty to have regard to the dignity of the Court and to its function as a working body and not to jeopardise the proper administration of justice, and the duty not to breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Quoted verbatim into dalicc:additionalClauses so that they are at least visible in the record.

  • info Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer none

    dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer holds both paragraphs of the No warranty section, quoted verbatim.

  • info Rubric 7 cc:jurisdiction none

    dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:perpetual match the grant, "a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence". The licence adds "This licence is governed by the laws of England and Wales", which the model has no field for.

  • gap Rubric 8 record none

    The conditions now held as clause text are the gap: a duty not to misrepresent the source, a duty of respect towards an institution and a data-protection compliance duty have no terms. Proposed terms: dalicc:noMisrepresentation, dalicc:respectInstitutionalDignity, dalicc:dataProtectionCompliance. The exemptions list and the automatic end of the rights on breach share the gaps recorded for OGL 3.0.

  • info Rubric 9 record none

    The consistency check reports no conflict, before and after the corrections.

  • info Rubric 10 record none

    The record is the Supreme Court edition of the Open Government Licence: the freedoms list, the no-warranty section and the definitions are word for word those of OGL 3.0, with the attribution statement and the four court-specific conditions changed. Modelling it identically to OGL 3.0 is therefore right, and the additional clauses are the only place where the records should differ.

  • major Rubric 10 record applied

    Standard-license addition of 2026-09-15, decision 9: the record was corrected against its new siblings and versioned. The review's finding on family consistency, applied to the third record of the Open Government Licence family: the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions are removed and the database right the licence covers is stated.

Settled in version 2 (2)

  • settled odrl:prohibition

    cc:ShareAlike is modelled as an odrl:Prohibition. Nothing in the text forbids the licensee from placing an adaptation under a share-alike licence; the opposite is true, the licence states that its terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and with the Open Data Commons Attribution License. In ODRL a prohibition says the licensee must not do the act, so this statement asserts something the licence does not say, and it changes every compatibility answer against a share-alike licence. The family-rule baseline raises the same point for permissive software licences under rule 5b. Proposed for removal, together with the two sibling records that carry the identical block.

  • settled odrl:prohibition

    dalicc:addStatement is modelled as an odrl:Prohibition, which the vocabulary reads as: the licensee must pass the licence on unchanged and may not attach additional terms or notices. The licence says the opposite in its permission list, the information may be combined with other information or included in the licensee's own product or application, and it imposes no pass-through condition at all. Proposed for removal.

Report an issue The review record as JSON The review checks the model against the license text. It is not legal advice.

History

This license model has 2 versions. Version 2 is the one served today; every earlier version keeps its own address, so a conclusion drawn from one of them can still be checked against it.

  1. Version 2 current2026-09-24 Giray Havur

    The content review of 2026-09-15 added 1 clause text and 1 permission, changed 2 permissions, recorded the relation to the record this one was adapted from and recorded the review state. Later changes brought it in line with its family and its text in the verification of 2026-09-15, permitted relicensing with the notice as a duty, recorded which sentence of the text each statement rests on and named the license the record itself is published under.

    View JSON-LD Turtle RDF/XML

    14 changes

    • added dalicc:additionalClauses "You must (where you copy, publish, distribute, transmit, adapt or exploit the Information): ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that the Licensor endorses you or your use of the Information; ensure that you (i) do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source; (ii) do not present the Information in a way that does not have regard to the dignity of the Court and to its function as a working body; and (iii) do not use it in any way that jeopardises the proper administration of justice; ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 or is otherwise unlawful."

      Review finding The licence carries four conditions that no deontic term can express and the record carried none of them: the non-endorsement rule, the duty not to mislead or misrepresent the information or its source, the duty to have regard to the dignity of the Court and to its function as a working body and not to jeopardise the proper administration of justice, and the duty not to breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Quoted verbatim into dalicc:additionalClauses so that they are at least visible in the record.

    • added dalicc:jurisdictionPortOf dalicclib:UkOpenGovernmentLicenseForPublicSectorInformation

      Port relation The 2026-09-15 review made the relation between a jurisdiction port and the record it was adapted from explicit in the data.

    • added dalicc:reviewStatus dalicc:Reviewed

      Review state Every record records how far it has come in the editorial workflow and when it was last checked against the legal text.

    • added dalicc:reviewedOn "2026-09-15"^^xsd:date

      Review state Every record records how far it has come in the editorial workflow and when it was last checked against the legal text.

    • added dalicc:variantKind "edition"

      Port relation The 2026-09-15 review made the relation between a jurisdiction port and the record it was adapted from explicit in the data.

    • changed permission cc:DerivativeWorks with duties [cc:Attribution, cc:Notice]

      was permission cc:DerivativeWorks with duties [cc:Attribution]

      Review finding The licence requires two things when the information is used and the record modelled only one. Section "You must (where you do any of the above)": "acknowledge the source of the Information by including the following attribution statement and, where possible, provide a link to this licence; Contains Supreme Court information licensed under the Open Supreme Court Licence v1.0." cc:Attribution was attached to cc:DerivativeWorks and odrl:distribute; cc:Notice was missing everywhere, although the attribution statement is itself a licence notice and the licence asks for a link to itself. Added next to cc:Attribution in both permissions, which is how the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 models the same sentence.

    • added permission dalicc:ModifiedWorks

      Review finding dalicc:ModifiedWorks, distributing a modified version and making it available to the public, was missing although the licence permits adapting the Information and publishing, distributing and transmitting it in the same list, and the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 carries the permission on the identical wording. Added.

    • changed permission odrl:distribute with duties [cc:Attribution, cc:Notice]

      was permission odrl:distribute with duties [cc:Attribution]

      Review finding The licence requires two things when the information is used and the record modelled only one. Section "You must (where you do any of the above)": "acknowledge the source of the Information by including the following attribution statement and, where possible, provide a link to this licence; Contains Supreme Court information licensed under the Open Supreme Court Licence v1.0." cc:Attribution was attached to cc:DerivativeWorks and odrl:distribute; cc:Notice was missing everywhere, although the attribution statement is itself a licence notice and the licence asks for a link to itself. Added next to cc:Attribution in both permissions, which is how the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 models the same sentence.

    • added permission dalicc:suiGenerisDatabaseRights

      Manual edit The review's finding on family consistency, applied to the third record of the Open Government Licence family: the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions are removed and the database right the licence covers is stated.

    • removed prohibition cc:ShareAlike

      Manual edit The review's finding on family consistency, applied to the third record of the Open Government Licence family: the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions are removed and the database right the licence covers is stated.

    • removed prohibition dalicc:addStatement

      Manual edit The review's finding on family consistency, applied to the third record of the Open Government Licence family: the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions are removed and the database right the licence covers is stated.

    • added permission dalicc:ChangeLicense with duties [dalicc:compliantLicense]

      Manual edit Permit relicensing on permissive licences; the notice clause is a duty, not a bar. Library convention 15: a licence that asks for no reciprocity and no source code asks only that the notice travels with the copy, which is a duty on the acts it governs and not a bar on putting the copy under other terms. dalicc:ChangeLicense is therefore a permission here, and the prohibition the record carried before is removed. The text reads: "The Licensor grants you a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use the Information subject to the conditions below." The permission carries the dalicc:compliantLicense duty, as Apache-2.0 does, because the notice has to survive the relicensing.

    • changed permission dalicc:ChangeLicense with duties [dalicc:compliantLicense]

      was permission dalicc:ChangeLicense with duties [dalicc:compliantLicense]

      Manual edit The statement is marked as a library convention, family rule 15: Permissive records permit relicensing: the text does not state it in as many words. Its duty dalicc:compliantLicense is marked as a library convention, family rule 15: Permissive records permit relicensing.

    • added dct:license <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>

      Manual edit Every record is published under CC BY 4.0. cc:license names the record DALICC keeps of that licence; dct:license now names it by the address Creative Commons publishes it at, so that a consumer matching the canonical IRI finds it.

  2. Version 1

    The version this model had before the content review of 2026-09-15.

    View JSON-LD Turtle RDF/XML

Every change names the reason behind it: a finding of the content review, one of its library-wide decisions, the metadata that review wrote onto every record, or a hand edit. None of it is legal advice.

Nothing on this page is legal advice. What a license means is decided by its text; ask a legal advisor before you rely on it.