{"id":"Hippocratic-2.1","title":"Hippocratic License 2.1","reviewed_on":"2026-09-22","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/Hippocratic-2.1.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The record models the Hippocratic License 2.1, which grants everything the licensor's copyright and patent rights would otherwise forbid and then conditions the grant on the licensee's own conduct: the software must be used consistently with the Human Rights Principles the text names and may not be used for anything that violates the Human Rights Laws it defines. That condition is the whole point of the licence and the vocabulary cannot express it, so it is quoted and recorded as a gap.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"File name, record identifier, SPDX identifier and IRI local name agree. cc:legalcode points at the publisher's page for version 2.1 and dct:source at the SPDX entry. dct:publisher is left out: the text names no publishing body, only the sentence that the licence is an Ethical Source licence, which is quoted.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"dcmitype:Software only. The grant reaches 'this software and associated documentation files', which the text then calls the Software throughout.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"'To do everything with the Software that would otherwise infringe (i) the Licensor's copyright in the Software or (ii) any patent claims to the Software that the Licensor can license or becomes able to license.' Everything means the full set: reproduce, distribute, modify, derive, display, present, cc:DerivativeWorks, dalicc:ModifiedWorks, cc:CommercialUse and dalicc:patentGrant. dalicc:ChangeLicense is permitted with no duty, because the Notice section says a licensee 'is free to create modifications of the Software and distribute only the modified portion created by Licensee with additional or different terms'.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The record carries no prohibition. The text has no trademark or endorsement clause, so dalicc:promote is absent, as it is on MIT-0; it asks instead that a trademark notice the licensor included be passed on, which is a duty. There is no patent retaliation clause either. The one thing the licence forbids, use that violates the Human Rights Laws, has no action term and is recorded as a gap.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"cc:Notice and cc:Attribution for 'Licensee must ensure that everyone who gets a copy of any part of this Software from Licensee, with or without changes, also receives the License and the above copyright notice'; dalicc:patentNotice and dalicc:trademarkNotice for the same sentence's '(and if included by the Licensor, patent, trademark and attribution notice)', which is why they hang on odrl:distribute; dalicc:modificationNotice on odrl:modify and odrl:derive for 'Licensee must cause any modified versions of the Software to carry prominent notices stating that Licensee changed the Software'; cc:ShareAlike for 'the portion of the Software not modified must be distributed pursuant to this License', which is file-level reciprocity and is why the duty hangs on the three acts and not on the licence as a whole.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"The Disclaimer section disclaims warranty and liability in one sentence, so the whole sentence is quoted into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation is left out rather than repeating it, as in CAL-1.0. Twelve further clauses are quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses, including both human rights sections, the arbitration clause and the indemnity.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"major","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction stays dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:governingLaw is absent: the text names no governing law and says the licence 'may be enforced by Licensor under the Laws of any jurisdiction to which Licensee is subject'. dalicc:terminatesOnBreach is true and dalicc:curePeriod is '30 days' for the Notice section's cure sentence. Two further clauses also end the licence at once: electing not to arbitrate, and a court holding the human rights terms unenforceable. Both are quoted.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:fieldOfUseRestriction","description":"The human rights condition has no term. dalicc:fieldOfUseRestriction is the nearest literal and names it; both sections are quoted: 'Licensee shall use the Software in a manner consistent with Human Rights Principles' and 'The Software shall not be used by any person or entity for any systems, activities, or other uses that violate any Human Rights Laws.' Proposed term: dalicc:externalStandardCompliance, a duty action for a licence that binds the licensee to a body of law or a standard named outside the licence, with an annotation naming the instrument.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The indemnity has no term: 'Licensee shall hold harmless and indemnify Licensor (and any other contributor) against all losses, damages, liabilities ... arising out of or relating to Licensee's use of the Software in violation of Human Rights Laws or Human Rights Principles.' Quoted. Proposed term: dalicc:indemnifyLicensor, a duty action.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The arbitration clause has no term: disputes about the human rights sections 'shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration', and a licensee who declines loses the licence. dalicc:governingLaw is about the law that governs, not about the forum, so it is not used. Quoted. Proposed term: dalicc:disputeResolutionForum, an annotation holding the forum and the rules a licence names.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer, run against licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_default.ttl, returned no conflicts. The record has no prohibition at all, so no action can be permitted and prohibited at once.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"major","field":"record","description":"Its nearest sibling in shape is MIT-0, which also carries a wide grant and no prohibition, and in substance C-UDA-1.0, which also confines the licensee to a field the vocabulary can only name in a literal. The difference from both is that the condition here is about the licensee's conduct towards other people rather than about the kind of work done with the software.","action":"none"}],"family":"Source-available licences and riders","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"variant_of":null,"notes":"The condition is drafted around instruments outside the licence, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Global Compact and the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, so a reader cannot tell from the licence text alone what compliance requires. The record says what the licence says and no more."}