{"id":"ECL-1.0","title":"Educational Community License v1.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://opensource.org/license/ECL-1.0","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"Models the first Educational Community License, an Apache 1.1 era permissive grant over any original work of authorship. The record follows MIT and Apache-1.1 for its shape and Apache-2.0 for its asset types, because the text licenses software, source code, documents and other related items alike. The licence has no patent clause at all, so the record makes no patent statement.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"File name, license id, SPDX id and the IRI dalicclib:ECL-1.0 agree. cc:legalcode and dct:source both point at the single seeAlso URL of the SPDX entry, which is the only published location of the version 1.0 text.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"Asset types follow Apache-2.0 (dalicc:CreativeWork, dcmitype:Dataset, dcmitype:Software) rather than the software-only shape of MIT, because the text says the licence applies to 'any original work of authorship (the Original Work)' and that the Original Work includes 'software, source code, documents, or other related items'.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The grant reads: 'Permission to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and sublicense this Original Work and its documentation, with or without modification, for any purpose, and without fee or royalty to the copyright holder(s) is hereby granted'. The record therefore permits reproduce, distribute, modify, derive, display, present, grant use (the sublicense wording, modelled as odrl:grantUse the way MIT and Apache-2.0 model it), commercial use, derivative works, modified works and the distribution fee.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:promote is prohibited on the strength of: 'The name and trademarks of copyright holder(s) may NOT be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to the Original or Derivative Works without specific, written prior permission.'","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The four conditions apply to 'ALL copies of the Original Work or portions thereof, including modifications or derivatives, that you make', so cc:Notice and cc:Attribution hang off distribute, modify and derive, and dalicc:modificationNotice plus dalicc:rename hang off modify and derive only: 'Any modifications of the Original Work must be distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders.' No duty is license-wide: the licence imposes nothing on mere use.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Two clauses the deontic model cannot carry are quoted verbatim: the trademark and advertising sentence, and 'Title to copyright in the Original Work and any associated documentation will at all times remain with the copyright holders.'","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"The text names no legal system and sets no term, so cc:jurisdiction is dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The licence is silent about patents. Following the trap list, silence is not a prohibition: the record carries neither dalicc:patentGrant nor any patent prohibition. Nothing else in the text needed a term the vocabulary lacks.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer, run with the 39 axioms of licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_default.ttl, returned no conflicts.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"ECL-1.0 is the predecessor of ECL-2.0, which is written in this review group, so both carry dalicc:variantKind \"version\" the way Apache-1.1 and Apache-2.0 do. The two records differ deontically: 1.0 has no patent grant and no patent retaliation, and it carries the rename duty that 2.0 drops.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"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 earlier reading wrote is removed. The text reads: \"Permission to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Original Work, and to permit persons to whom the Original Work is furnished to do so, subject to the following: the above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Original Work.\" The permission carries the dalicc:compliantLicense duty, as Apache-2.0 does, because the notice has to survive the relicensing.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Educational, hardware and logistics","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version","notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text of the licence. The warranty paragraph carries the warranty disclaimer and the liability limitation in one block of capitals; the record splits it at the sentence boundary, warranty into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and the IN NO EVENT sentence into dalicc:LiabilityLimitation, which is the split the rubric asks for and is finer than the MIT record, which keeps both in dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer."}