On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 at 13:55:37 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > CC-BY-SA 3.0 285 > CC-BY-SA 4.0 61 > > 4.0 is a pretty niche license right now. Maybe that's expected to grow at > the cost of 3.0, though....
I would hope that it is expected to grow, given that CC-BY-SA 3.0 has annoyingly many juristiction-specific "ports" and CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not. It would seem reasonable to have a general operating principle that if we include a common-license, and the author of that license now recommends using a later version instead, then we should include the later version too? smcv