Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I
counting each one.
My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim.
There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.
They are sufficiently interchangeable or interoperable, however, that
they can be treated as one license for our purposes.
(I believe there are
over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.)
I'm sure if *you* counted them there would be "over 100" at least.
As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that
says "You must
distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in
relation to the
Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that
mutilate, modify or take derogatory action in relation to.
As Erik has explained, this is part of the moral-rights language
necessary to the license such that it can be applied in moral-rights-
Perhaps you could write us a little essay on how you well you think
GFDL addresses the moral-rights question. I look forward to your
sharing your expertise, Counselor.
to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker
than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
What about the argument that the differences between licenses can't be
judged on a one-dimensional scale of weak vs. strong?
That argument requires that you analyze GFDL on every dimension that
you analyze CC-BY-SA 3.0 on. I look forward to your analysis,