Anthony writes:

Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated rather than counting each one.

My goodness. I can't believe you'd ever exaggerate a factual claim. I'm astonished.

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 not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation"?

That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that anyone can 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- honoring jurisdictions.

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.

...

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.

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, Counselor.

--Mike