Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 2.0 Netherlands

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-nd/2.0/nl/, and the six 4.0 International parents carry exactly that pair, legal code plus deed. Added.

minor Rubric 2 odrl:target applied

The record targeted dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port licenses database rights in its own words, so the asset type is text supported rather than merely plausible. Article 1 brings a database inside the licensed work: "Voor de toepassing van deze Licentie wordt onder het Werk mede verstaan de geluidsopname in de zin van de Wet op de naburige rechten en de databank in de zin van de Databankenwet", the Dutch statute that implements the sui generis database right of directive 96/9/EC. The grant in article 3 then carries "het opvragen en hergebruiken van het Werk", the extraction and re-utilisation right itself, and the preamble names "het databankenrecht" among the rights protecting the work. Added dcmitype:Dataset.

info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

Every modelled permission is supported by the grant. Article 3 grants "een wereldwijde, niet-exclusieve licentie om de navolgende rechten met betrekking tot het Werk vrij van royalty's uit te oefenen voor de duur van de toepasselijke intellectuele eigendomsrechten", a worldwide non exclusive royalty free licence for the term of the applicable rights. It covers reproduction, incorporation into collections, distribution of copies or sound recordings, public display, performance and digital performance of the work. The record models this as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, plus odrl:modify and dalicc:ModifiedWorks, which rest on the technical modification sentence of the grant: Article 3: "De Gebruiker is tevens gerechtigd om technische wijzigingen aan te brengen die noodzakelijk zijn om de rechten met behulp van andere media, dragers en formats uit te oefenen." In this NoDerivatives set the grant list stops short of any right to adapt, which is why the record prohibits odrl:derive while still permitting odrl:modify: the only modification allowed is the one the grant calls technically necessary. The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 models it in exactly the same way. cc:CommercialUse is permitted, which follows from a grant that puts no purpose limit on the rights.

info Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition none

dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which the licence supports: Article 4(a): "Het is de Gebruiker niet toegestaan om het Werk onder enige afwijkende voorwaarden aan te bieden waardoor de voorwaarden van deze Licentie dan wel de uitoefening van de rechten van de ontvangers krachtens deze Licentie worden gewijzigd of beperkt." dalicc:promote is prohibited, which rests on the reservation of all rights not expressly granted ("Alle niet uitdrukkelijk verleende rechten zijn hierbij voorbehouden aan de Licentiegever") and the Creative Commons trademark paragraph of the notice around the licence body, not a clause of the licence itself odrl:derive is prohibited, which follows from a grant that never lists a right to adapt the work; the NoDerivatives element is expressed by the absence of the derivative right rather than by a separate prohibition in the text.

info Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

The attribution and notice duties are present and supported. Article 4(a) requires a copy of the licence or its Uniform Resource Identifier with every copy or sound recording distributed, displayed, performed or digitally performed, and that every reference to the licence and to the exclusion of warranty be left standing. Credit is owed to the "Maker", the natural or legal person who made the original work, by name or pseudonym, with the title of the work and, where reasonably applicable, the URI the licensor associates with it; a derivative work must refer to the use made of the work, for example "De Franse vertaling van het Werk van de Maker". The parties are named "Licentiegever" and "Gebruiker" rather than licensor and licensee.. The duties hang on odrl:distribute and odrl:modify, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by making the work public rather than by private use; odrl:derive is prohibited in this NoDerivatives set, so the duties reach only distribution and the technically necessary modification.

minor Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

The record hangs dalicc:modificationNotice on odrl:modify, and this NoDerivatives text has no clause to support it: because the grant never reaches an adaptation, the port carries no requirement to mark changes and no derivative credit sentence at all, unlike the other five element sets of the same port. The only modification the licence allows is the technically necessary one, which needs no notice. The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 carries exactly the same statement, so this is a family wide modelling choice rather than a defect of this port, and removing it would split the NoDerivatives family. It does not change the compatibility outcome, since the duty is attached to a permission the licence grants only for format shifting.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer none

dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation are quoted from the Dutch text of this port and not from the English unported version, and each field holds its own clause. Article 5 (Garantie en vrijwaring) and article 6 (Beperking van de aansprakelijkheid) are separate articles and the record keeps them apart: dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer holds article 5 and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation holds article 6, both quoted verbatim in Dutch and in the upper case of the original.

minor Rubric 6 dalicc:LiabilityLimitation none

dalicc:LiabilityLimitation begins with a space, because the legal code page prints the article number and the sentence in two blocks ("6. Beperking van de aansprakelijkheid" then ". DE LICENTIEGEVER ..."). The quote is otherwise verbatim, and it was left untouched rather than silently edited.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:additionalClauses none

The record has no dalicc:additionalClauses, so the clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry stay invisible: the reservation of unnamed rights, the downstream offer to recipients, the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs and the termination rule. Article 7 ends the licence automatically when the user acts contrary to it, keeps the licences of downstream recipients of collections alive and lets articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 survive; article 8 makes the licensor offer every recipient a licence on the same terms. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way.

info Rubric 7 cc:jurisdiction none

cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Netherlands, which matches the country of the legal code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/nl/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant made for the duration of copyright. The Dutch 2.0 port has no choice of law clause: article 8 ends with the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs and names no applicable law or forum. cc:jurisdiction bpicounty:Netherlands therefore records the port, not a forum chosen by the text.

gap Rubric 8 odrl:prohibition none

The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. Article 4(a): "Het is de Gebruiker niet toegestaan om het Werk te verspreiden, in het openbaar te tonen, op of uit te voeren of digitaal uit te voeren met behulp van technologische voorzieningen die de toegang tot of het gebruik van het Werk beperken op een wijze die niet in overeenstemming is met de voorwaarden van deze Licentie-overeenkomst." 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

The automatic termination of the licence on breach, the survival of the named sections and the licence the licensor offers to every downstream recipient have no vocabulary terms. Article 7 ends the licence automatically when the user acts contrary to it, keeps the licences of downstream recipients of collections alive and lets articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 survive; article 8 makes the licensor offer every recipient a licence on the same terms. Proposed terms: dalicc:terminationOnBreach and dalicc:downstreamOffer.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Article 4 closes with a moral rights limit on the licensee, and it is the only port in this review group that cites the statute by article: "De in artikel 3 verleende rechten mogen worden uitgeoefend met inachtneming van het niet voor afstand vatbare morele recht van de maker (en/of de uitvoerende kunstenaar) krachtens artikel 25 lid 1 sub d van de Auteurswet 1912 (en/of artikel 5 lid 1 sub d van de Wet op de naburige rechten) om zich te verzetten tegen elke misvorming, verminking of andere aantasting van het werk, welke nadeel zou kunnen toebrengen aan de eer of de naam van de maker." Not expressible with the present vocabulary. Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction for the ports that bind the licensee and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion for the ports that bind the licensor.

info Rubric 8 record none

The Dutch 2.0 port carries no collecting society clause at all: no royalty is reserved or waived anywhere in the six legal texts, and no collecting society is named. The French, Chilean, Australian, South African and Polish 2.0 ports all say something on the point, so the silence is a divergence inside one version rather than a property of version 2.0.

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-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties, and after the correction above the same odrl:target as well. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text, the clause texts, and the version specific clauses of 2.0 that the model does not carry, chiefly the express prohibition of sublicensing, the technological measures clause and the royalty collection arrangements. The compatibility checker cannot tell this record from any other record of the BY-ND element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.

minor Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition applied

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.

major Rubric 7 dalicc:terminatesOnBreach applied

The termination clause of this port reads: "Deze Licentie en de daarin verleende rechten vervallen automatisch op het moment dat de Gebruiker in strijd handelt met de voorwaarden van deze Licentie." 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. Article 4(a): "Het is de Gebruiker niet toegestaan om het Werk in sublicentie te geven." 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.