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