[Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...

[Luis Villa]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Karsten Wade<kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wade<kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our
>> > default license choice (for now)?  Or is it really a three-way choice?
>>
>> Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are.  Is it
>> just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's
>> laws?  Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of???
>
> Yeah, that's my read.  Ported have been localized, presumably either
> in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear
> which.

Both; ports are done by lawyers and are intended to use local legal
terminology so as to be more familiar to local courts and compatible
with local copyright and contract law nuance.

(My two cents, not really deeply thought through, nor legal advice as
I am not a lawyer: the GPL has done fine without porting for two
decades. I think using ported CC licenses merely confuses and
complicates with no appreciable benefit, so tend to recommend the
unported when people ask me this question.)

Luis