{"id":"CreativeCommonsAttributionNoderivs30Georgia","title":"Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 3.0 Georgia","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ge/legalcode","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the BY-ND element set of the Creative Commons 3.0 port for Georgia and the deontic model is correct: the NoDerivatives element prohibits odrl:derive, the attribution and notice duties hang on the acts that make the work public, and every permission follows from the grant section of the port. The legal text was read in Georgian, and the permissions, prohibitions and duties were checked against its grant and restriction sections and against the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0. Corrections applied: dct:source, odrl:target. What remains are proposals that touch the whole Creative Commons family rather than this record, chiefly the express prohibition of sublicensing.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"dct:source","description":"The record carried cc:legalcode but no dct:source. The legal code page of the port states the canonical URL of the licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ge/, 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/3.0/ge/> ;"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"The SPDX licence list defines no identifier for this port. The id that the legal code URL implies, CC-BY-ND-3.0-GE, is not on the list, so none was invented. Only four records of this review group can take an SPDX identifier: CC-BY-3.0-AU, CC-BY-3.0-AT, CC-BY-3.0-US and CC-BY-SA-3.0-AT.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"The record targeted dalicc:CreativeWork alone, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port names a database as licensed subject matter in its own text: clause 1 defines the \"Object\" as a work of literature, science or art and/or a performance, phonogram, videogram, broadcast and/or a database as protected by the Georgian law on copyright and neighbouring rights, and clause 1 counts the maker of a database among the \"Authors\". Clause 3 adds that where national law recognises sui generis database rights of the Licensor, the Licensor waives them, and clause 4 exempts parts that are covered only by those rights from the restrictions. Since the text is explicit, dcmitype:Dataset was added here rather than left to the library wide decision that covers the ports whose text says nothing about databases.","action":"applied","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. In English rendering, clause 3 grants a worldwide, royalty free, non-exclusive and perpetual licence, for the duration of the copyright, to exercise the rights in the Object. The grant covers reproduction of the work, its inclusion in a collection and its reproduction as part of that collection, and distribution and public communication or performance of the work alone or as part of a collection, together with the modifications that are technically necessary to exercise those rights in other media and formats. The adaptation right is not in the grant. The record models this as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present. The record also carries odrl:modify and dalicc:ModifiedWorks, which the next finding addresses.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"cc:CommercialUse is permitted and dalicc:chargeDistributionFee is permitted, which the grant supports: the licence places no limit on the purpose of the use, and the royalty free character of the grant concerns the licence fee, not a fee charged by the licensee for providing the work.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The record permits odrl:modify and dalicc:ModifiedWorks, but the 3.0 NoDerivatives text grants no right to adapt the work at all. The grant of clause 3 of the NoDerivatives port does not include creating or reproducing an adapted Object; only technically necessary changes are allowed. The 4.0 International parent CC-BY-ND-4.0 does permit producing adapted material and only forbids sharing it, which is where the modelling comes from, but 3.0 is not 4.0 on this point. Removing the two statements changes the compatibility outcome and touches every 2.0 and 3.0 NoDerivatives record in the library, so it is proposed rather than applied.","action":"superseded","superseded_by":2,"change":"remove:\n    odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n            odrl:action odrl:modify ;\n            odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action cc:Attribution ],\n                [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action cc:Notice ],\n                [ a odrl:Duty ; odrl:action dalicc:modificationNotice ] ] ,\n        [ a odrl:Permission ;\n            odrl:action dalicc:ModifiedWorks ]"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. Clause 4(a), in English rendering: \"the Licensee may not sublicense the Object.\" 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.","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 around the licence, not on a clause of the licence body. odrl:derive is prohibited, which the NoDerivatives clause states directly. The grant of clause 3 of the NoDerivatives port does not include creating or reproducing an adapted Object; only technically necessary changes are allowed.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The attribution and notice duties are present and supported. Clause 4(d), in English rendering, requires the copyright notices to be kept intact and the name or pseudonym of the Author or of the attribution parties designated by the Licensor, the title of the Object, the Uniform Resource Identifier given by the Licensor, and, for an adapted Object, a credit identifying the use made of the Object. 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"The field holds the verbatim text of section 5 of the Georgian port, but that section is not a warranty disclaimer: it is an affirmative warranty plus an indemnity. In English rendering the Licensor warrants that the Object is original, that the Author holds full ownership, that nobody contests the authorship stated on the Object and that the rights granted are neither shared nor transferred, and the Licensor holds the Licensee harmless against third party claims. The vocabulary defines dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer as the clause under which the work comes with no warranty, and dalicc:WarrantyOrLiabilityAcceptance covers the licensee accepting a warranty, not the licensor giving one. Keeping the text where it is says the opposite of what the licence says, so a new property is proposed and nothing was moved.","action":"proposed","change":"remove:\n    dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer \"\"\"<section 5 of the Georgian port>\"\"\"\nadd, once the vocabulary defines it:\n    dalicc:LicensorWarranty \"\"\"<section 5 of the Georgian port>\"\"\" ;"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:LiabilityLimitation","description":"dalicc:LiabilityLimitation is quoted verbatim from section 6 of the Georgian text and is a genuine limitation: apart from the warranties of section 5, the Licensor is liable only for damage caused intentionally or by negligence. That is narrower than the disclaimer of the other five ports, which exclude special, incidental and consequential damages.","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, waiver 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:Georgia, which matches the country of the legal code URL, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant for the duration of copyright. On the governing law: clause 8, in English rendering: \"the law of Georgia applies to this Licence between the parties (the Licensor and the Licensee).\" 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. Clause 4(a), in English rendering: when distributing, publicly performing, displaying or communicating the Object the Licensee may not apply any technological means that restrict the recipient in exercising the rights granted by this 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.","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, under which every recipient of the work or of an adaptation receives a licence directly from the licensor on the same terms, has none either. Proposed term: dalicc:downstreamOffer.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The moral rights clause of this port is not expressible. Clause 4, in English rendering: \"the recognised personal non-property rights of the Author, which cannot be waived under the applicable legislation, remain untouched.\" Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion, so that the direction of the clause can be recorded.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"The royalty collection arrangement is not expressible. Clause 3, in English rendering: under non-waivable compulsory licensing schemes the Licensor reserves the right to collect royalties for both commercial and non-commercial use, and under voluntary licensing schemes the Licensor retains the right to collect royalties, personally or through a collecting society, for ANY exercise of the rights granted by this Licence. The Unported 3.0 text waives the voluntary scheme royalties, so the Georgian port keeps a claim that the parent gives up. Proposed term: dalicc:royaltyCollectionReserved, with a value saying whether the claim is reserved or waived and for which kind of use. This matters to a user of the model, because a licence that reads as royalty free can still leave a collecting society claim standing.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check with the 41 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. The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent CC-BY-ND-4.0, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties. The odrl:target now agrees with the parent as well. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text and the clause texts, 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. 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: \"წინამდებარე ლიცენზია და უფლებები და ვალდებულებები შეწყდება ავტომატურად ლიცენზიატის მიერ ლიცენზიის ნებისმიერი პირობების დარღვევის შემთხვევაში.\" 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 3.0 port: Georgia (GE)","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 and no International 3.0 record; the version difference, 3.0 against 4.0, is therefore part of the port relation and not only the jurisdiction. The 3.0 text differs from 4.0 in substance as well: it prohibits sublicensing expressly, it forbids technological protection measures, it has no thirty day cure period for a breach, it settles the royalty collection question per jurisdiction, and its share-alike clause expressly accepts a later version, the Unported licence or another port with the same licence elements. None of that is visible in the model. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}