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

[Teofilo]

2011/2/19 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> 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.

3.0 is not as thoroughly internationalized as 2.0.

Click on the following links so that you can see by yourself that they
are empty :

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ca/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/fr/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ja/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/in/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ru/