Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan

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-sa/2.0/jp/, 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-SA-2.0-JP, which the SPDX licence list does not define, so no identifier was invented. Of the thirty six records in this review group only the German NonCommercial-ShareAlike port has an SPDX identifier.

minor Rubric 2 odrl:target proposed

The record targets dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. Creative Commons licences are media neutral, and this port grants the rights in 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 rather than applied in thirty six records alone.

info Rubric 3 odrl:permission none

Every modelled permission is supported by the grant. Article 3 grants a licence in all countries, royalty free, non-exclusive and continuing for the term of Article 7(b), and it enumerates the neighbouring rights in performances, phonograms, broadcasts and cable broadcasts as covered subject matter. The Japanese port also moves the downstream offer to recipients into its own Article 4, where the other ports keep it in the miscellaneous section. The grant covers reproduction, incorporation into collections, distribution, public display, public performance and communication to the public, and the creation and reproduction of derivative works, which the record models as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:derive and cc:DerivativeWorks.

minor Rubric 3 odrl:permission proposed

The record permits dalicc:chargeDistributionFee while prohibiting cc:CommercialUse. Article 5: the licensee may not use the work or a derivative work for profit-making purposes. The Japanese wording carries no "primarily intended" qualifier, so it is the strictest of the six. 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 the other five ports, but the statement sits uneasily next to the prohibition and the Japanese port has no such test at all. The same statement is in the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-SA-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 licensee may offer the work only under the terms of this licence and may not offer or impose terms that alter or restrict it. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which rests on the reservation of all rights not expressly granted and on the trademark paragraph of the Creative Commons notice, not on a clause of the licence body.

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, that all notices referring to the licence and the warranty disclaimer be kept intact, and that credit be given to the author. Article 5 owes credit to the original author and to the performers, with the title, the licensor URI and, for a derivative work, a credit identifying the use made of the work. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive, which matches the licence, since the duties are triggered by making the work public rather than by private use. The cc:ShareAlike duty is carried at the level of the odrl:Set, as in the parent CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0.

info Rubric 5 odrl:duty none

The share-alike clause of the 2.0 ports is wider than a flat prohibition of relicensing. Article 5: a derivative work may be used only under this licence or another Creative Commons licence containing the same licence elements, for example a newer version of this licence or the licence of another country with the same elements. The record expresses it as a cc:ShareAlike duty plus a dalicc:ChangeLicense prohibition, which cannot say that a later version of the same licence or another port with the same elements is an acceptable outgoing licence. The 4.0 International parent has the same limitation, and the consistency check would report a conflict if dalicc:ChangeLicense were permitted next to cc:ShareAlike, so the present modelling is the only one the checker allows.

minor Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer applied

The Japanese port has no separate disclaimer section: Article 6 is headed as the limitation of liability and its first paragraph is the warranty disclaimer, its second the limitation of liability. The record carried both paragraphs in dalicc:LiabilityLimitation and had no dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer at all, the only records of the review group without one. The first paragraph was moved into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and the liability field now holds the second paragraph, both quoted verbatim from the Japanese text.

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 recipients, the severability and entire agreement paragraphs and the termination rule, 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:Japan, which matches the country of the legal-code URL, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches the grant for the duration of copyright. Article 9 (governing law) provides that the licence is construed under Japanese law. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit on the grant: the grant itself is worldwide.

gap Rubric 8 odrl:prohibition none

The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. Article 5: the licensee may not use the work or a derivative work with technological protection measures that control access to or use of the work in a way that conflicts with the licence. 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 downstream offer to every recipient of the work has none either. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.

gap Rubric 8 record none

Article 3 closes with a moral-rights non-assertion: the licensor undertakes not to exercise the author personal rights and the performer personal rights over uses made under the licence. Like the Korean port and unlike the Australian, South African and German ports, the Japanese port binds the licensor rather than the licensee, and this is not expressible with the present vocabulary.

info Rubric 8 record none

The Japanese 2.0 port carries no collecting-society or royalty-collection clause.

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-ShareAlike 4.0 International. After the 4.0 parents were themselves corrected, the deontic model of this record is identical to the parent, statement for statement, apart from odrl:target: 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 and 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 the other records of the BY-NC-SA 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: "この利用許諾は、あなたがこの利用許諾の条項に違反すると自動的に終了する。" 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 5: the licensee may not grant a further licence in the work. 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 thirty six ports alone would split the compatibility behaviour of one family. Proposed as one library wide correction, together with an update of the vocabulary note.