Open Supreme Court Licence

History

This license model has 2 versions. Version 2 is the one served today; every earlier version keeps its own address, so a conclusion drawn from one of them can still be checked against it.

1. Version 2 current2026-09-24 Giray Havur

   The content review of 2026-09-15 added 1 clause text and 1 permission, changed 2 permissions, recorded the relation to the record this one was adapted from and recorded the review state. Later changes brought it in line with its family and its text in the verification of 2026-09-15, permitted relicensing with the notice as a duty, recorded which sentence of the text each statement rests on and named the license the record itself is published under.

   View version 2 JSON-LD Turtle RDF/XML

   14 changes

   • added dalicc:additionalClauses "You must (where you copy, publish, distribute, transmit, adapt or exploit the Information): ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that the Licensor endorses you or your use of the Information; ensure that you (i) do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source; (ii) do not present the Information in a way that does not have regard to the dignity of the Court and to its function as a working body; and (iii) do not use it in any way that jeopardises the proper administration of justice; ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 or is otherwise unlawful."

     Review finding The licence carries four conditions that no deontic term can express and the record carried none of them: the non-endorsement rule, the duty not to mislead or misrepresent the information or its source, the duty to have regard to the dignity of the Court and to its function as a working body and not to jeopardise the proper administration of justice, and the duty not to breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Quoted verbatim into dalicc:additionalClauses so that they are at least visible in the record.

   • added dalicc:jurisdictionPortOf dalicclib:UkOpenGovernmentLicenseForPublicSectorInformation

     Port relation The 2026-09-15 review made the relation between a jurisdiction port and the record it was adapted from explicit in the data.

   • added dalicc:reviewStatus dalicc:Reviewed

     Review state Every record records how far it has come in the editorial workflow and when it was last checked against the legal text.

   • added dalicc:reviewedOn "2026-09-15"^^xsd:date

     Review state Every record records how far it has come in the editorial workflow and when it was last checked against the legal text.

   • added dalicc:variantKind "edition"

     Port relation The 2026-09-15 review made the relation between a jurisdiction port and the record it was adapted from explicit in the data.

   • changed permission cc:DerivativeWorks with duties [cc:Attribution, cc:Notice]

     was permission cc:DerivativeWorks with duties [cc:Attribution]

     Review finding The licence requires two things when the information is used and the record modelled only one. Section "You must (where you do any of the above)": "acknowledge the source of the Information by including the following attribution statement and, where possible, provide a link to this licence; Contains Supreme Court information licensed under the Open Supreme Court Licence v1.0." cc:Attribution was attached to cc:DerivativeWorks and odrl:distribute; cc:Notice was missing everywhere, although the attribution statement is itself a licence notice and the licence asks for a link to itself. Added next to cc:Attribution in both permissions, which is how the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 models the same sentence.

   • added permission dalicc:ModifiedWorks

     Review finding dalicc:ModifiedWorks, distributing a modified version and making it available to the public, was missing although the licence permits adapting the Information and publishing, distributing and transmitting it in the same list, and the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 carries the permission on the identical wording. Added.

   • changed permission odrl:distribute with duties [cc:Attribution, cc:Notice]

     was permission odrl:distribute with duties [cc:Attribution]

     Review finding The licence requires two things when the information is used and the record modelled only one. Section "You must (where you do any of the above)": "acknowledge the source of the Information by including the following attribution statement and, where possible, provide a link to this licence; Contains Supreme Court information licensed under the Open Supreme Court Licence v1.0." cc:Attribution was attached to cc:DerivativeWorks and odrl:distribute; cc:Notice was missing everywhere, although the attribution statement is itself a licence notice and the licence asks for a link to itself. Added next to cc:Attribution in both permissions, which is how the sibling record NCGL-UK-2.0 models the same sentence.

   • added permission dalicc:suiGenerisDatabaseRights

     Manual edit The review's finding on family consistency, applied to the third record of the Open Government Licence family: the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions are removed and the database right the licence covers is stated.

   • removed prohibition cc:ShareAlike

     Manual edit The review's finding on family consistency, applied to the third record of the Open Government Licence family: the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions are removed and the database right the licence covers is stated.

   • removed prohibition dalicc:addStatement

     Manual edit The review's finding on family consistency, applied to the third record of the Open Government Licence family: the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions are removed and the database right the licence covers is stated.

   • added permission dalicc:ChangeLicense with duties [dalicc:compliantLicense]

     Manual edit Permit relicensing on permissive licences; the notice clause is a duty, not a bar. Library convention 15: a licence that asks for no reciprocity and no source code asks only that the notice travels with the copy, which is a duty on the acts it governs and not a bar on putting the copy under other terms. dalicc:ChangeLicense is therefore a permission here, and the prohibition the record carried before is removed. The text reads: "The Licensor grants you a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use the Information subject to the conditions below." The permission carries the dalicc:compliantLicense duty, as Apache-2.0 does, because the notice has to survive the relicensing.

   • changed permission dalicc:ChangeLicense with duties [dalicc:compliantLicense]

     was permission dalicc:ChangeLicense with duties [dalicc:compliantLicense]

     Manual edit The statement is marked as a library convention, family rule 15: Permissive records permit relicensing: the text does not state it in as many words. Its duty dalicc:compliantLicense is marked as a library convention, family rule 15: Permissive records permit relicensing.

   • added dct:license <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>

     Manual edit Every record is published under CC BY 4.0. cc:license names the record DALICC keeps of that licence; dct:license now names it by the address Creative Commons publishes it at, so that a consumer matching the canonical IRI finds it.

2. Version 1

   The version this model had before the content review of 2026-09-15.

   View version 1 JSON-LD Turtle RDF/XML

Every change names the reason behind it: a finding of the content review, one of its library-wide decisions, the metadata that review wrote onto every record, or a hand edit. None of it is legal advice.