Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 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-nc-nd/3.0/nl/, and the six 4.0 International parents carry exactly that pair, legal code plus deed. Added.

minor Rubric 1 spdx:licenseId none

SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal-code URL implies CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0-NL, which the SPDX licence list does not define, so no spdx:licenseId was invented. Of the forty two records of this review group only the Attribution 3.0 Netherlands record can take one.

minor Rubric 2 odrl:target applied

The record targeted dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port licenses database rights in terms. The definition of Werk in article 1 says that for the purposes of the licence the Werk also means the phonogram, the first fixation of a film, the broadcast programme and the databank in the sense of the Databankenwet, insofar as they are protected in the jurisdiction of the user; the definition of Maker includes the producer of a databank; the article 3 grant includes the right to extract and re-use the Werk and waives the licensor own exclusive rights under the national law implementing the European database directive; and article 4 carves the restrictions out of the parts that qualify only under the sui generis database right. Since the text is explicit, dcmitype:Dataset was added, which also brings the record into line with its parent.

info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

Every modelled permission is supported by the grant. Article 3 grants a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence for the duration of the applicable intellectual property rights: to reproduce the Werk and include it in Verzamelwerken, to distribute copies and to show, perform and make the Werk available online, and to extract and re-use the Werk; Afgeleide werken may not be made. The record models that as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display and odrl:present. The rights may be exercised in all media and formats now known or later devised.

minor Rubric 3 odrl:permission proposed

The record permits dalicc:chargeDistributionFee while prohibiting cc:CommercialUse. The vocabulary defines dalicc:chargeDistributionFee as a fee covering the act of providing the work to a third party, so a pure cost recovery fee is arguable under the commercial advantage test of this port, but the statement sits uneasily next to the prohibition. The same statement is in the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 and in every NonCommercial record of the library, so removing it is one library wide decision about the NonCommercial family.

info Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition none

dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which the licence supports: the licensee may offer the work only under the terms of this licence and may not offer or impose terms that alter or restrict it or the recipient ability to exercise the rights granted. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which rests on the reservation of all rights not expressly granted and on the endorsement bar in the attribution clause rather than on a trademark clause of the licence body. cc:CommercialUse is prohibited, which is the NonCommercial element of this set and is stated in the restrictions section. odrl:derive is prohibited, which is the NoDerivatives element of this set.

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 communicated to the public, that all notices referring to the licence and to the disclaimer be kept intact, and that credit be given. The attribution clause owes credit to the Maker, which the Dutch text defines to include the performer, the film and phonogram producer, broadcasting organisations and the producer of a database, and to the Naamsvermeldingsgerechtigden designated by the licensor. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, which matches the licence, since they are triggered by making the work public rather than by private use.

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 rather than a copy of the other. Article 5, Garantie en vrijwaring, is the warranty disclaimer and article 6, Beperking van de aansprakelijkheid, the limitation, both in capitals and both closed by the Dutch qualifier "INDIEN EN VOORZOVER DE WET NIET ANDERS BEPAALT". Each field holds its own article verbatim.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:additionalClauses none

The record has no dalicc:additionalClauses, so the clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry, the reservation of unnamed rights, the downstream offer to every recipient, the severability and entire agreement paragraphs, the termination rule and the royalty collection arrangements, are not visible in the record at all. 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-nc-nd/3.0/nl/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant made for the duration of the applicable rights. The Dutch port has no choice-of-law clause. Article 8 holds the downstream offer, severability and the written-waiver rule. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit on the grant: the grant itself runs worldwide.

gap Rubric 8 odrl:prohibition none

The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it: article 4(a) forbids the licensee to distribute, show, perform or make the Werk available online with technological measures that restrict the terms of the licence or the ability of recipients to exercise the rights it grants. 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, and the survival of the definitions, the disclaimer, the limitation of liability and the miscellaneous sections, have no vocabulary term. Proposed term: dalicc:terminationOnBreach. The offer of a direct licence from the licensor to every recipient of the work has none either. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Moral rights are not expressible with the present vocabulary. Article 4 requires that the rights granted in article 3 be exercised with regard to the moral right of the Maker, and of the performer, to object to any distortion, mutilation or other impairment of the work that could harm their honour, name or standing, where the law does not allow that right to be waived. It restricts the licensee and is the most concrete moral-rights clause of the review group. Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction for a clause that binds the licensee and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion for one in which the licensor undertakes not to assert.

gap Rubric 8 record none

The royalty collection arrangements are not expressible either. Article 4 separates non-waivable levy schemes such as the private copying levy, where the right to collect is reserved for both commercial and non-commercial use; waivable levy schemes such as public lending right, reserved for commercial use; and collective rights management, waived for non-commercial use and reserved for commercial use. The word used throughout is auteursrechtenorganisatie. Proposed term: dalicc:royaltyCollectionReserved, with a companion for the waived case. The clause differs between the element sets of one and the same port, which is exactly what the model cannot show.

gap Rubric 8 record none

The sui generis database right is handled by the text in a way the model cannot carry: the licensor waives its own database right and the restrictions of the licence do not apply to the parts of the work that qualify only under that right. dcmitype:Dataset in odrl:target says that a dataset may be licensed, not that the database right is waived and not that the attribution and share-alike conditions fall away for the database layer. Proposed terms: dalicc:databaseRightWaiver and a marker for the carve-out.

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-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text, 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. After the correction the odrl:target of this record also matches the parent. The compatibility checker cannot tell this record from the other records of the BY-NC-ND element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.

major Rubric 3 odrl:permission applied

The record said nothing about the sui generis database right although the port's own text settles it, which the rubric 2 finding of this review read off the legal code: article 1 defines the Werk to include the databank in the sense of the Databankenwet, the definition of Maker counts the producer of a databank among the makers, and article 3 grants the right to extract and re-use the Werk and waives the licensor own exclusive rights under the national law implementing the European database directive, and article 4 carves the restrictions out of the parts that qualify only under the sui generis database right. Exercising that right is therefore permitted by this licence and dalicc:suiGenerisDatabaseRights is now a permission of the record. It carries no duty, which is where the 3.0 ports part company with the 4.0 text their parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 models: Section 4(c) of 4.0 carries the conditions of Section 3(a) over to the database layer, while this port takes its own restrictions off the material that qualifies only under the database right. The review reads the articles off the legal code without quoting a sentence of the Dutch text, so the passage above is the finding's own wording and not a quotation. Under the proposed default rule eu-sui-generis-db of licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_eu.ttl the database right is not granted unless the licence grants it, so a record that is silent reads as a licence that keeps the right back, which this text contradicts.

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:permission

The record permits odrl:modify and dalicc:ModifiedWorks although this is a NoDerivatives licence: article 3: the licensee may make technically necessary changes "maar is verder niet gerechtigd om Afgeleide Werken te maken". The record does prohibit odrl:derive, so the two statements contradict each other in substance, and a licensee reading the record would be told that modified works may be distributed. The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 carries the same pair, and so does every NoDerivatives record in the library, so removing the two permissions is one library wide decision about the NoDerivatives family and not a defect of this port. Not applied for that reason.

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. Not applied for that reason.