{"id":"CreativeCommonsAttributionNoderivs20SouthAfrica","title":"Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 2.0 South Africa","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/za/legalcode","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the BY-ND element set of the Creative Commons 2.0 port for South Africa and it does so correctly: the NoDerivatives element prohibits odrl:derive, the attribution and notice duties hang on the acts that make the work public. The legal text was read in English and the permissions, prohibitions and duties all follow from the grant and restriction sections of the port. Corrections applied: dct:source. What remains are proposals that touch the whole Creative Commons family rather than this record: the express prohibition of sublicensing, and the asset types.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"dct:source","description":"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/za/, and the six 4.0 International parents carry exactly that pair (legal code plus deed). Added.","action":"applied","change":"dct:source <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/za/> ;"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal-code URL implies CC-BY-ND-2.0-ZA, 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"The record targets dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-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.","action":"proposed","change":"odrl:target [ a odrl:AssetCollection ;\n        dct:type dalicc:CreativeWork ,\n            dcmitype:Dataset ] ;"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Every modelled permission is supported by the grant. Section 3 grants a \"worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence, for the duration of the applicable copyright\", and adds \"The Licence is irrevocable except for breach as set out in this Licence\", which no other port in this review group states. The grant covers reproduction, incorporation into collections, distribution, public display, public performance and communication to the public, and no adaptation right, which the record models as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The record permits odrl:modify and dalicc:ModifiedWorks while prohibiting odrl:derive. Section 3 of the NoDerivatives port omits the grant \"to create and reproduce Derivative Works\" that the other element sets carry. The vocabulary defines dalicc:ModifiedWorks as the counterpart of cc:DerivativeWorks for alterations that do not amount to a new derivative work, so the pair is defensible for the technically necessary format changes the port does allow, but the record does not say that the modification right stops there. The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 models it the same way, so any change belongs to the whole NoDerivatives family.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. Section 4(a): \"You may not sublicense 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.","action":"superseded","superseded_by":2,"change":"odrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:sublicense ] ;"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"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. Attribution is owed to the \"Original Author\" and the licensee must \"keep intact all rights management information for the Work\", a South African formulation that the other ports render as copyright notices. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, which matches the licence, since the duties are triggered by making the work public rather than by private use.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation are quoted verbatim from the English text of this port and not from the English unported version, and they match the disclaimer and the limitation sections of the legal code.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:SouthAfrica, which matches the country of the legal-code URL, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches the grant for the duration of copyright. Section 8: \"This Licence is governed by the law of South Africa.\" Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit on the grant: the grant itself is worldwide.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. Section 4(a): \"You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, broadcast, transmit, publish and make available the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this Licence Agreement.\" 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"Section 4(c) restricts the grant so that it may not be exercised \"in any manner that violates the moral rights of the author, to be named as author of the Work, and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work where such action is or would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author\", with an exception for modifications that are absolutely necessary on technical grounds in films, broadcasts and computer programs. Not expressible with the present vocabulary.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"Section 3 names the South African collecting societies (SAMRO for performance royalties, SARRAL and NORM for mechanical rights). In the ShareAlike and plain Attribution sets the licensor waives the collection right; in the NonCommercial sets the licensor reserves it for uses primarily intended for commercial advantage. Not expressible with the present vocabulary.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"Port of Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 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-ND element set, across all three versions and every jurisdiction the library holds.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"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.","action":"applied","change":"# removed\nodrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:promote ] ;\n"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:terminatesOnBreach","description":"The termination clause of this port reads: \"This Licence and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this Licence.\" 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.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Creative Commons 2.0 port: South Africa (ZA)","port_of":"CC-BY-ND-4.0","variant_kind":"jurisdiction-port","notes":"The parent is the 4.0 International record of the same element set, since the library holds no unported or International 2.0 record; the version difference, 2.0 against 4.0, is therefore part of the port relation and not only the jurisdiction. The 2.0 text differs from 4.0 in substance as well: it prohibits sublicensing expressly, it has no thirty day cure period for a breach, it has no sui generis database rights clause, and it settles the royalty collection question per jurisdiction. None of that is visible in the model. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}