In case the point wasn't clear: > You're right; it would be a good thing if someone skilled in the art > were to attempt that. Short summaries of existing licences would be a > fine start, though I could swear that there have been a few. > > It should be remembered that the CC 'human-readable' summaries are not > the operative texts, though.
Like the other CC licences, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ stresses at the top: This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode has the operative text. After copying and pasting from the title 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License' through the end of concluding Section 8 (just above the greyed-text notices) into a 80-column text file: $ wc cc-by-sa-4.0 233 2144 13982 cc-by-sa-4.0 $ 233 lines, 2144 words or word-like text blocks, 14kB of text. For comparison's sake, taking http://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-2.0 and removing the preamble (legal NOOP irrespective of claims it's essential blah-blah), the four lines of notices below the title, and the 'How to Apply' instruction at the bottom: $ wc gplv2 204 2023 12095 gplv2 $ 204 lines, 2023 words or word-like text blocks, 12kB of text. (The four lines of notices _are_ esential to the licence, but I was trying to create a direct comparison omitting the same small legal metadata from both.) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
