Mike Linksvayer wrote: >>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike >>> Licenses. >> >> [citation needed] > > There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/index.rdf
That sounds more likely than "over 100," although the relevance of the total number is difficult to see, given that the only class of CC-BY- SA licenses we'd be working with is CC-BY-SA 3.x. > In any case, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update and all > previous discussion I've seen makes it clear the specific license > considered is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Yes. > Everywhere CC BY and BY-SA licenses are currently used (Wikinews and > Commons) care has been taken to cite the specific version used. I > would be incredibly surprised if the same care was not exercised if > BY-SA is adopted as the main content license. Of course. See also rms's excellent discussion of the issue at http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-fdl-open-letter/ . It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l