[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Anthony]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated rather than
counting each one.  The total number is completely irrelevant though, Mike,
other than the fact that it's more than 1.  You should spell things out
before you have people work on them.

There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x.  (I believe there are
over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.)

> 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.
>

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.

> 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.


It'd be nice if this were spelled out before removing "this page is still a
draft" from the proposal, and in particular, before voting begins.

"All text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
License."  "By submitting an edit, you agree to release your contribution
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License..."
"If you make modifications or additions to the page or work you re-use, you
must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
License." "You may import content from other sources that is available under
the CC-BY-SA license only" What version(s), and what jurisdiction(s)?

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?