[Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

[David Gerard]

On 19 February 2011 10:31, Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an "unported" license.
> This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions
> bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a disappointing
> regression from the better 2.0 version.
> In contrast, the CC 2.0 licenses have country (and/or language) based
> versions such as :
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.fr
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.en
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/au/legalcode
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode
> and so on.


You do not understand the licenses. There are also country versions of
3.0, and each is explicitly interchangeable with each of the others.

You have failed to explain why a proliferation of incompatible
licenses is a good thing in free content, when it has consistently
proven to be a bad thing in software. Please address this issue before
continuing.


- d.