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

Compare dependency graphs

Put two dependency graphs next to each other and read what the second one states differently from the first: the axioms it adds, removes or relates another way, and the default rules it adds, drops or changes, each with its legal basis, its status and a plain explanation. Nothing shown here is legal advice.

Swap the two

DALICC deontic dependency graph, version 2, against European Union default rules, version 2.

Axioms: 0 added, 0 removed, 0 changed. Default rules: 9 added, 0 removed, 0 changed.

The same comparison as JSON Through the API Dependency Graph Viewer

What the second graph adds

Default rules 9

Status
dalicc:suiGenerisDatabaseRights Extract or reuse a substantial part of a database Not granted by default European Union Directive 96/9/EC article 7: a maker who has made a substantial investment in a database holds a right separate from copyright, so a licence that says nothing about it leaves it untouched. Articles 8(1) and 15: a lawful user of a database made available to the public may extract and reuse insubstantial parts of its contents, and a contractual provision to the contrary is null and void Proposed
A licence that says nothing about the database right is read as not granting it: the licensee may not extract or reuse a substantial part of a database on the strength of that licence alone, although a lawful user of a database made available to the public may still extract and reuse insubstantial parts, and a contract term that forbids this is void (articles 8(1) and 15). The Database Directive gives the maker of a database a right of its own, separate from copyright, and a licence that deals only with copyright leaves it untouched. Combining a licence that is silent about it with one that grants it shows a conflict marked as coming from this rule.
dalicc:moralRightsRestriction Moral rights restriction Not waivable Austria Urheberrechtsgesetz section 19(2): a waiver of the right to claim authorship is void; section 20(1): the author decides whether and with which designation the work is named; section 21(3): a consent to unspecified changes does not stop the author from objecting to distortions that seriously harm his intellectual interests in the work Proposed
This rule adds nothing to a licence that says nothing about moral rights; it reports a finding when a licence permits the licensee to set them aside, for example by waiving the author's right to claim authorship. Austrian copyright law makes a waiver of the right to claim authorship void (section 19(2)) and keeps the right to object to a distortion despite a general consent to changes (section 21(3)); an agreement about how or whether the author is named is valid. A person combining licences under this graph sees the finding beside a licence that claims such a waiver, and the licence text is left as it is.
dalicc:moralRightsRestriction Moral rights restriction Not waivable France Code de la propriété intellectuelle article L121-1: the moral right is perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible, so a clause of the licence that gives it up is void Proposed
This rule adds nothing to a licence that says nothing about moral rights; it reports a finding when a licence permits the licensee to set them aside. In France the moral right of the author is perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible, so a clause of a licence that gives it up is void. A person combining licences under this graph sees the finding beside a licence that claims such a waiver.
dalicc:moralRightsRestriction Moral rights restriction Not waivable Germany Urheberrechtsgesetz sections 13 and 14, read with section 29(1): authorship and the integrity of the work are not transferable and a blanket waiver in a licence has no effect, although consent to a specific use does Proposed
This rule adds nothing to a licence that says nothing about moral rights; it reports a finding when a licence permits the licensee to set them aside. Under German copyright law authorship and the integrity of the work cannot be transferred, and a general waiver in a licence has no effect, although the author may consent to a specific use. A person combining licences under this graph sees the finding beside a licence that claims such a waiver.
dalicc:reverseEngineerForInteroperability Reverse engineer for interoperability Granted by default European Union Directive 2009/24/EC article 6(1): reproducing and translating the code is allowed where that is indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs, provided the acts are done by a person having a right to use a copy, the information has not previously been readily available, and the acts are confined to the parts of the program needed Proposed
A licence that says nothing about decompiling a program for interoperability is read as allowing it, within the limits the statute sets: the person must be entitled to use the program, the information must not already be readily available, and only the parts needed may be decompiled. The Software Directive permits reproducing and translating the code so far as that is indispensable to obtain the information needed to make an independently created program work with other programs. A licence that prohibits it is not read as removing the exception; the rule eu-interop-void reports the prohibition as a finding.
dalicc:reverseEngineerForInteroperability Reverse engineer for interoperability Not waivable European Union Directive 2009/24/EC article 8: any contractual provision contrary to article 6 is null and void Proposed
This rule adds nothing to a licence that is silent about decompiling for interoperability; it reports a finding when a licence prohibits it. The Software Directive declares any contractual provision contrary to the interoperability exception null and void. A person combining licences under this graph sees the finding beside such a prohibition, and the licence text is left as it is.
dalicc:sellCopy Sell copy Granted by default European Union Directive 2001/29/EC article 4(2): the distribution right in a tangible copy is exhausted by its first sale in the Union with the rightholder's consent (Case C-263/18 Tom Kabinet: not for downloaded copies of works other than software). Directive 2009/24/EC article 4(2) and Case C-128/11 UsedSoft: a copy of a program downloaded against payment with a licence of unlimited duration may be resold Proposed
A licence that says nothing about reselling a copy is read as allowing the owner of a tangible copy that was sold in the European Economic Area with the rightholder's consent to sell that copy on; for software the same holds for a downloaded copy sold with a licence of unlimited duration, provided the seller makes its own copy unusable. The rule does not cover downloaded copies of other works, which the Court of Justice excluded in Tom Kabinet. Combining a licence that is silent about it with one that prohibits it shows a conflict marked as coming from this rule.
dalicc:textAndDataMining Text and data mining Granted by default European Union Directive (EU) 2019/790 articles 3 and 4, recital 18: research organisations and cultural heritage institutions may mine works they have lawful access to for the purposes of scientific research, and anybody may mine lawfully accessible works unless the rightholder has expressly reserved that use in an appropriate manner, which recital 18 says may be done by contractual agreements or a unilateral declaration. Both exceptions also cover extractions from a database protected by the sui generis right. A reservation made outside the licence, such as a machine-readable opt-out, is not modelled here Proposed
A licence that says nothing about text and data mining is read as allowing it. Article 3 of the Digital Single Market Directive lets research organisations and cultural heritage institutions mine works they have lawful access to for the purposes of scientific research, and article 4 lets anybody with lawful access mine them unless the rightholder has expressly reserved that use, for example in the licence or, for content online, by machine-readable means. A licence that prohibits mining is therefore read as such a reservation for everybody except research organisations and cultural heritage institutions, for whom rule eu-tdm-research reports the prohibition as a finding.
dalicc:textAndDataMining Text and data mining Not waivable European Union Directive (EU) 2019/790 article 7(1): a contractual provision contrary to the exception of article 3 is unenforceable, so a licence cannot forbid a research organisation or a cultural heritage institution with lawful access to mine a work for the purposes of scientific research Proposed
This rule adds nothing to a licence that is silent about mining; it reports a finding when a licence prohibits text and data mining. The Digital Single Market Directive makes a contract term unenforceable in so far as it forbids a research organisation or a cultural heritage institution with lawful access to mine the work for the purposes of scientific research. The prohibition still binds everybody else, and it stays in the record as the text states it.

What the second graph does not have

Nothing: every statement of DALICC deontic dependency graph is in European Union default rules too.

What both have in a different form

Nothing: no statement is in both graphs in a different form.