{"id":"CreativeCommonsAttributionNoncommercialSharealike30Egypt","title":"Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Egypt","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/eg/legalcode","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The record models the BY-NC-SA element set of the Creative Commons 3.0 port for Egypt and it does so correctly: the NonCommercial element prohibits cc:CommercialUse, the ShareAlike element carries a cc:ShareAlike duty, the attribution and notice duties hang on the acts that make the work public. The legal text was read in Arabic and the permissions, prohibitions and duties all follow from the grant and restriction sections of the port. Corrections applied: dct:source, the removal of a trailing space from dct:title. What remains are proposals that touch the whole Creative Commons family rather than this record: the express prohibition of sublicensing, 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-nc-sa/3.0/eg/, 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-nc-sa/3.0/eg/> ;"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"SPDX has no identifier for this port. The legal-code URL implies CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-EG, which the SPDX licence list does not define: of the ported 3.0 licences SPDX knows only the Austrian, Australian, German, Dutch, United States and IGO ones. No identifier was invented, and none of the forty two records in this review group carries one.","action":"none"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"dct:title","description":"The dct:title literal ended in a space, \"Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Egypt \", which the library list and the search index carry through. The same defect sits on the BY-NC-SA record of every port in this review group. Removed.","action":"applied","change":"dct:title \"Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Egypt\"@en ;"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:target","description":"The record targets dalicc:CreativeWork only, while the 4.0 International parent CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 targets dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Dataset. This port has no sui generis database rights clause: unlike the French and Polish ports in this review group it neither grants extraction and re-utilisation nor waives the database producer right, so the case for dcmitype:Dataset rests only on the media neutrality of the grant, which runs to 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.","action":"proposed","change":"odrl:target [ a odrl:AssetCollection ;\n        dct:type dalicc:CreativeWork,\n            dcmitype:Dataset ] ;"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The grant supports the modelled permissions. clause 3 grants a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty free licence for the whole term of copyright protection, covering reproduction, incorporation in collections, the creation and reproduction of derivative works including translations, and the distribution and public performance of the work and of derivative works. The record models the grant as odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:derive, odrl:modify, cc:DerivativeWorks, and dalicc:ModifiedWorks for alterations short of a new derivative work.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The record permits dalicc:chargeDistributionFee while prohibiting cc:CommercialUse. The NonCommercial restriction of this port forbids exercising the granted rights in a way primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, and the vocabulary defines dalicc:chargeDistributionFee narrowly, as a fee covering the act of providing the work to a third party, so a pure cost recovery fee is arguable but the statement sits uneasily next to the prohibition. 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.","action":"proposed","change":"remove:\n    odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n            odrl:action dalicc:chargeDistributionFee ]"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids sublicensing and the record does not say so. clause 4(a): the work may not be sublicensed (\"wa-la yajuzu kadhalika tarkhis al-musannaf min al-batin\"). 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 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 work may be distributed or publicly performed only under the terms of this licence and the licensee may not offer or impose terms that restrict it, and an adaptation may be distributed only under this licence, a later version of it with the same licence elements, or another Creative Commons licence, unported or ported, with the same licence elements. dalicc:promote is prohibited, which in a 3.0 port rests on an express sentence of the attribution clause: the licensee may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the original author, the licensor or the attribution parties without their separate prior written permission. That is firmer support than the 2.0 ports have, where the same prohibition rested on the reservation of unnamed rights and on the trademark paragraph of the Creative Commons notice.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"cc:CommercialUse is prohibited, which the NonCommercial restriction of this port supports: the licensee may not exercise the granted rights in a way primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, and the exchange of the work for other copyrighted works by digital file sharing is not treated as such a use as long as no monetary compensation changes hands.","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 distributed or publicly performed, that all notices referring to the licence and to the warranty disclaimer be kept intact, and that credit be given with the name of the author or pseudonym, the title of the work, the URI the licensor associates with it and, for an adaptation, a credit identifying the use made of the work. In this port the parties are the licensor (al-murakhkhis) and the licensee (al-murakhkhas lahu), and credit is owed to the author or the copyright owner, or to the attribution parties the licensor designates. The duties hang on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive, which matches the licence, since they 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"dalicc:modificationNotice is attached to odrl:modify and odrl:derive and the text supports it directly: the grant of the adaptation right is conditional on the adaptation taking reasonable steps to label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original work, with the translation example given in the port language.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The share-alike clause of the 3.0 ports is wider than a flat prohibition of relicensing: an adaptation may be distributed under this licence, under a later version of it carrying the same licence elements, or under any other Creative Commons licence, unported or ported to another jurisdiction, carrying the same licence elements. The record expresses this as a cc:ShareAlike duty plus a dalicc:ChangeLicense prohibition, which cannot say that a later version 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation each hold their own clause and nothing else: the disclaimer field carries the disclaimer section of this port and the liability field carries the limitation of liability section, both quoted from the Arabic text of the port and not from the English unported version, and both checked word for word against the legal code. The Arabic quotations match the clause 5 and clause 6 text of the port, with two orthographic differences from the legal code of some element sets: the record writes the word for \"liable\" without the final tanwin and joins a conjunction that the published page separates with a space. The wording and the substance are the same, and all six records of the port carry the same two quotations.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The record has no dalicc:additionalClauses, so the clauses the ODRL policy cannot carry are not visible in the record at all: the reservation of rights not expressly granted, the downstream offer to every recipient, the automatic termination on breach with the survival of the named sections, and the severability, waiver and entire agreement paragraphs. The whole Creative Commons family is modelled this way.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction is bpicounty:Egypt, which matches the country of the legal-code URL https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/eg/legalcode, and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual, which matches a grant made for the duration of the applicable copyright. Note that the jurisdiction field records the legal home of the port, not a territorial limit: the grant itself is worldwide. The Egyptian port carries no choice of law clause; clause 8 closes with the usual Berne style statement that rights granted by a national intellectual property law beyond those named here are covered by the licence and that the licence is not meant to restrict any other applicable right.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The licence forbids technological protection measures and the vocabulary has no term for it. The clause is in clause 4(a): when the work is distributed or publicly performed, no technological measure may be imposed on it that would limit the ability of a recipient to exercise the rights granted under 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"Three clauses of every 3.0 port have no vocabulary term. The automatic termination of the licence on breach, with the survival of the definitions, the disclaimer, the limitation of liability and the miscellaneous sections: proposed term dalicc:terminationOnBreach. The direct offer the licensor makes to every recipient of the work or of an adaptation, on the same terms: proposed term dalicc:downstreamOffer. The reservation of all rights not expressly granted: no term either.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"Moral rights have no vocabulary term, in either direction: a clause that restricts the licensee, and a clause that leaves the author personal rights untouched by the licence. Clause 4(f) is a numbered sub-section of its own, headed moral rights: the moral rights of the author are inalienable and are not affected by the terms of this licence. Egypt is the only port in this review group that gives moral rights their own numbered sub-section. Proposed terms: dalicc:moralRightsRestriction and dalicc:moralRightsNonAssertion.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The royalty collection arrangements are not expressible either, and they are the clause that differs most between the ports of one version. Clause 4(e) splits the royalty question in three: under a non waivable compulsory licensing scheme the licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect; under a waivable one it reserves the right where the exercise is commercial, subject to clause 4(c), and may waive it otherwise; and under a voluntary scheme it reserves the right, individually or through the collective management society it belongs to, for commercial uses.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"odrl:duty","description":"A share-alike duty that accepts a later version of the same licence, or another port with the same licence elements, cannot be expressed. Proposed: a property on the cc:ShareAlike duty, for example dalicc:shareAlikeAccepts, naming the licences the outgoing work may carry.","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-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0). The deontic model of this record is identical to the parent, statement for statement: the same permissions with the same duties attached, the same prohibitions and the same set level duties, and, apart from odrl:target, nothing else. What differs is the jurisdiction, the language of the legal text and 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. 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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:terminatesOnBreach","description":"The termination clause of this port reads: \"ينتهي هذا الترخيص والحقوق الممنوحة بموجبه تلقائيًّا في حالة قيام المرخَّص له بخرق أي بند من بنوده.\" 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: Egypt (EG)","port_of":"CC-BY-NC-SA-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 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 has no thirty day cure period for a breach, it settles the royalty collection question per jurisdiction, and it states the moral rights position of the jurisdiction. None of that is visible in the model. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}