The sources disagree. The README shows a CC BY-ND 4.0 badge and says the work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International; the LICENSE.md file contains the legal text of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (no NoDerivatives wording); …

The sources disagree. The README shows a CC BY-ND 4.0 badge and says the work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International; the LICENSE.md file contains the legal text of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (no NoDerivatives wording); and the GitHub API reports the licence as 'Other' with SPDX NOASSERTION [uss README, LICENSE.md, GitHub API JSON saved in evidence/github]. The record therefore leaves all rights as unknown. Under ND, adapted or transformed copies of the spec could not be shared; under BY they could. Rationale: Direct comparison of the README licence paragraph with the LICENSE.md heading. Counterevidence: None found; no maintainer clarification, issue or commit message about the discrepancy was located. Uncertainty: Intent of the maintainers is unknown. The files may have been updated at different times (latest commit 2026-06-13 'Update docs.md'). Sources: - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/UniversalScheduleStandard/UniversalScheduleStandard/main/README.md - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/UniversalScheduleStandard/UniversalScheduleStandard/main/LICENSE.md - https://github.com/UniversalScheduleStandard/UniversalScheduleStandard Checked: 2026-10-17

{
  "context": "Which licence actually governs the Universal Schedule Standard repository?"
}