Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Venezuela

minor Rubric 1 dct:source applied

The record carried cc:legalcode but no dct:source. The legal-code page states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ve/, and the six 4.0 International parents carry exactly that pair (legal code plus deed). Added.

info Rubric 1 spdx:licenseId none

SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal-code URL implies CC-BY-NC-3.0-VE, which the SPDX licence list does not define: of the ported 3.0 licences SPDX knows only the Austrian, Australian, German, Dutch, United States and IGO ones. No identifier was invented, and none of the forty two records in this review group carries one.

minor Rubric 2 odrl:target proposed

The record targets dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port has no sui generis database rights clause: unlike the French and Polish ports in this review group it neither grants extraction and re-utilisation nor waives the database producer right, so the case for dcmitype:Dataset rests only on the media neutrality of the grant, which runs to all media and formats now known or later devised. Aligning the ports with the parents is a single library wide decision covering every Creative Commons port, so it is left as a proposal.

info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

The grant supports the modelled permissions. "el Licenciante otorga al Licenciatario una licencia universal, gratuita, no exclusiva, por tiempo indefinido (por la duración aplicable de los derechos de autor)" (section 3). The record models the grant as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:derive, odrl:modify, cc:DerivativeWorks, and dalicc:ModifiedWorks for alterations short of a new derivative work.

minor Rubric 3 odrl:permission proposed

The record permits dalicc:chargeDistributionFee while prohibiting cc:CommercialUse. The NonCommercial restriction of this port forbids exercising the granted rights in a way primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, and the vocabulary defines dalicc:chargeDistributionFee narrowly, as a fee covering the act of providing the work to a third party, so a pure cost recovery fee is arguable but the statement sits uneasily next to the prohibition. The same statement is in the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-4.0 and in all one hundred and forty five NonCommercial records of the library, so removing it is one library wide decision, not a defect of this port.

info Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition none

dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which the licence supports: the work may be distributed or publicly performed only under the terms of this licence and the licensee may not offer or impose terms that restrict it. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which in a 3.0 port rests on an express sentence of the attribution clause: the licensee may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the original author, the licensor or the attribution parties without their separate prior written permission. That is firmer support than the 2.0 ports have, where the same prohibition rested on the reservation of unnamed rights and on the trademark paragraph of the Creative Commons notice.

info Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition none

cc:CommercialUse is prohibited, which the NonCommercial restriction of this port supports: the licensee may not exercise the granted rights in a way primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, and the exchange of the work for other copyrighted works by digital file sharing is not treated as such a use as long as no monetary compensation changes hands.

info Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

The attribution and notice duties are present and supported: the licence requires a copy of, or the URI for, the licence with every copy distributed or publicly performed, that all notices referring to the licence and to the warranty disclaimer be kept intact, and that credit be given with the name of the author or pseudonym, the title of the work, the URI the licensor associates with it and, for an adaptation, a credit identifying the use made of the work. In this port the parties are the "Licenciante" (licensor) and the "Licenciatario" (licensee), and credit is owed to the "Autor Original". 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.

info Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

dalicc:modificationNotice is attached to odrl:modify and odrl:derive and the text supports it directly: the grant of the adaptation right is conditional on the adaptation taking reasonable steps to label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original work, with the translation example given in the port language.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer none

dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation each hold their own clause and nothing else: the disclaimer field carries the disclaimer section of this port and the liability field carries the limitation of liability section, both quoted from the Spanish text of the port and not from the English unported version, and both checked word for word against the legal code.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:additionalClauses none

The record has no dalicc:additionalClauses, so the clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry are not visible in the record at all: the reservation of rights not expressly granted, the downstream offer to every recipient, the automatic termination on breach with the survival of the named sections, and the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way.

info Rubric 7 cc:jurisdiction none

cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Venezuela, which matches the country of the legal-code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ve/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant made for the duration of the applicable copyright. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit: the grant itself is worldwide. The Venezuelan port is drafted on the earlier 3.0 pattern: it speaks of "Obras Derivadas" (derivative works) rather than adaptations, and it carries no choice of law clause.

gap Rubric 8 odrl:prohibition none

The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. The clause is in section 4(a): "el Licenciatario no podrá imponer ninguna medida tecnológica efectiva que restrinja la capacidad de un beneficiario de la Obra de ejercer los derechos otorgados a dicho beneficiario según los términos de esta Licencia". 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.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Three clauses of every 3.0 port have no vocabulary term. The automatic termination of the licence on breach, with the survival of the definitions, the disclaimer, the limitation of liability and the miscellaneous sections: proposed term dalicc:terminationOnBreach. The direct offer the licensor makes to every recipient of the work or of an adaptation, on the same terms: proposed term dalicc:downstreamOffer. The reservation of all rights not expressly granted: no term either.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Moral rights have no vocabulary term, in either direction: a clause that restricts the licensee, and a clause that leaves the author personal rights untouched by the licence. Section 4(e) closes with the statutory reservation: "Los derechos morales no se ven afectados por esta Licencia en la medida en que sean reconocidos y no se puedan renunciar, de acuerdo con la ley aplicable." Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion.

info Rubric 8 record none

The royalty collection arrangements are not expressible either, and they are the clause that differs most between the ports of one version. Section 4(e) splits the royalty question in three: under a non waivable compulsory licensing scheme the licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect; under a waivable one it reserves the right for uses other than the non commercial use allowed by section 4(c) and waives it otherwise; and under a voluntary scheme it reserves the right, individually or through a "sociedad de gestión colectiva", for the same non non-commercial uses.

info Rubric 9 record none

The consistency check with the forty one 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.

info Rubric 10 record none

Port of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-4.0). The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties attached, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties, and, apart from odrl:target, nothing else. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text and the clause texts quoted from it, 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-NC element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.

major Rubric 7 dalicc:terminatesOnBreach applied

The termination clause of this port reads: "La presente Licencia y los derechos aquí concedidos finalizarán automáticamente por el incumplimiento del Licenciatario de los términos de esta Licencia." 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.

settled odrl:prohibition

The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. "El Licenciatario no puede sublicenciar la Obra." (section 4(a)). The vocabulary already has dalicc:sublicense, but it is used by no record in the library 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.