{"id":"CreativeCommonsAttribution30Vietnam","title":"Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Vietnam","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/vn/legalcode","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the BY element set of the Creative Commons 3.0 port for Vietnam and the deontic model is correct: the attribution and notice duties hang on the acts that make the work public, and every permission follows from the grant section of the port. The legal text was read in Vietnamese, and the permissions, prohibitions and duties were checked against its grant and restriction sections and against the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-4.0. Corrections applied: dct:source. What remains are proposals that touch the whole Creative Commons family rather than this record, chiefly the express prohibition of sublicensing.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"dct:source","description":"The record carried cc:legalcode but no dct:source. The legal code page of the port states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/vn/, and the six 4.0 International parents carry exactly that pair, legal code plus deed. Added.","action":"applied","change":"dct:source <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/vn/> ;"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"The SPDX licence list defines no identifier for this port. The id that the legal code URL implies, CC-BY-3.0-VN, is not on the list, so none was invented. Only four records of this review group can take an SPDX identifier: CC-BY-3.0-AU, CC-BY-3.0-AT, CC-BY-3.0-US and CC-BY-SA-3.0-AT.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"The record targets dalicc:CreativeWork alone, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port has no database rights clause, so the case rests only on the media neutrality of the grant. Aligning the ports with the parents is one library wide decision covering every Creative Commons port, so it is left as a proposal.","action":"proposed","change":"odrl:target [ a odrl:AssetCollection ;\n        dct:type dalicc:CreativeWork,\n            dcmitype:Dataset ] ;"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Every modelled permission is supported by the grant. Clause 3, in English rendering: \"the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty free, non-exclusive and perpetual licence (for the term of copyright protection) to exercise the rights in the Work as specified below\". The grant covers reproduce the Work, put it into one or more Collections and reproduce it as part of them, make and reproduce Derivative Works with reasonable steps to identify the changes, distribute, publicly perform and communicate the Work to the public including as part of a Collection, and do the same for Derivative Works. The record models this as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:modify, odrl:derive, cc:DerivativeWorks and dalicc:ModifiedWorks.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"cc:CommercialUse is permitted and dalicc:chargeDistributionFee is permitted, which the grant supports: the licence places no limit on the purpose of the use, and the royalty free character of the grant concerns the licence fee, not a fee charged by the licensee for providing the work.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. Clause 4(a), in English rendering: \"You may not grant a sub-licence over the Work.\" 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 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.","action":"superseded","superseded_by":2,"change":"odrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:sublicense ] ;"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which the licence supports: the licensee may offer the work only under the terms of this licence and may not offer or impose terms that alter or restrict it. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which rests on the reservation of all rights not expressly granted and on the trademark paragraph of the Creative Commons notice around the licence, not on a clause of the licence body.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The attribution and notice duties are present and supported. Clause 4(d), in English rendering, requires the copyright notices to be kept intact and the name or pseudonym of the Author or holder of related rights, or of the contributing parties designated by the Licensor, the title of the Work, the Uniform Resource Identifier the Licensor specifies, and, for a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use made of the Work. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by making the work public rather than by private use.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation are quoted verbatim from the Vietnamese text of this port and not from the English Unported version, and they match the disclaimer section and the limitation of liability section of the legal code. Each field holds its own clause, with no overlap between the two.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The record has no dalicc:additionalClauses, so the clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry, the reservation of unnamed rights, the downstream offer to recipients, the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs and the termination rule, are not visible in the record at all. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Vietnam, which matches the country of the legal code URL, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant for the duration of copyright. On the governing law: the Vietnamese port has no choice of law clause. Clause 8 states instead that the rights granted and the subject matter referred to were drafted using the terminology of the Vietnam Civil Code 2005, the Vietnam Intellectual Property Law 2005 and the implementing documents including Decree 100/2006/ND-CP. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit on the grant: the grant itself is worldwide.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. Clause 4(a), in English rendering: when you distribute, publicly perform or communicate the Work to the public you may not impose any effective technological measure on the Work that restricts the recipient in exercising the rights granted under this Licence. 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The automatic termination of the licence on breach, and the survival of the definitions, the disclaimer, the limitation of liability and the miscellaneous sections, have no vocabulary term. Proposed term: dalicc:terminationOnBreach. The downstream offer, under which every recipient of the work or of an adaptation receives a licence directly from the licensor on the same terms, has none either. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The moral rights clause of this port is not expressible. Clause 4, in English rendering: \"under this Licence, moral rights remain unchanged to the extent that they are recognised and cannot be waived under the applicable law.\" Vietnamese copyright law makes the right of attribution and the right of integrity perpetual and non-transferable. Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion, so that the direction of the clause can be recorded.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The royalty collection arrangement is not expressible. Clause 3, in English rendering: \"for the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor waives the right to collect royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted under this Licence, whether individually or through a collecting association operating a voluntary licensing scheme of which the Licensor is a member.\" Proposed term: dalicc:royaltyCollectionReserved, with a value saying whether the claim is reserved or waived and for which kind of use. This matters to a user of the model, because a licence that reads as royalty free can still leave a collecting society claim standing.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"The Vietnamese definition of \"Work\" recites the Vietnamese statutory list of protected works, which ends with \"computer programs and data compilations\" (\"chương trình máy tính và sưu tập dữ liệu\" without diacritics). That is a recital of what Vietnamese copyright protects, not a licence of database rights, so it is not on its own a reason to add an asset type.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check with the 41 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"Port of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent CC-BY-4.0, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties. The only structural difference left is odrl:target, which the parent extends with dcmitype:Dataset. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text and 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 moral rights clause and the royalty collection arrangements. The compatibility checker cannot tell this record from the other records of the BY element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:promote was prohibited and no sentence of this text supports it. The statement was the library's reading of a legal default, that a copyright licence which says nothing about endorsement grants no right to it, and it sat in 519 of 581 records as a house convention. That reading is now an adopted dalicc:DefaultRule of the core dependency graph, which supplies it to every licence that is silent about the action, so a compatibility check reaches the same answer and the record states only what the text states. Removed on 2026-09-23; see section 13 of docs/LICENSE_REVIEW.md.","action":"applied","change":"# removed\nodrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:promote ] ;\n"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:terminatesOnBreach","description":"The termination clause of this port reads: \"Giấy Phép này và các quyền được trao theo Giấy Phép này sẽ tự động chấm dứt hiệu lực khi Bạn có bất kỳ vi phạm nào đối với các điều khoản của Giấy Phép này.\" 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.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Creative Commons 3.0 port: Vietnam (VN)","port_of":"CC-BY-4.0","variant_kind":"jurisdiction-port","notes":"The parent is the 4.0 International record of the same element set, since the library holds no Unported and no International 3.0 record; the version difference, 3.0 against 4.0, is therefore part of the port relation and not only the jurisdiction. The 3.0 text differs from 4.0 in substance as well: it prohibits sublicensing expressly, it forbids technological protection measures, it has no thirty day cure period for a breach, it settles the royalty collection question per jurisdiction, and its share-alike clause expressly accepts a later version, the Unported licence or another port with the same licence elements. None of that is visible in the model. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}