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