diff --git a/cc-by-sa.tex b/cc-by-sa.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..756a6b4d92a40ae71beaab93fd0db8c767635cbe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/cc-by-sa.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,718 @@
+' cc-by-sa.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-
+%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of CC-BY-SA course
+%
+% Copyright (C) 2014                   Mike Linksvayer
+
+% License: CC-By-SA-4.0
+
+% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
+% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
+% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.
+
+% This text is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+% WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in
+% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'.  If not, please visit
+% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive
+% the license text.
+
+\part{Detailed Analysis of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses}
+
+{\parindent 0in
+\tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses''}{This part} is: \\
+\begin{tabbing}
+Copyright \= \copyright{} 2014 \hspace{.1mm} \=  \kill
+Copyright \> \copyright{} 2014 \>  Mike Linksvayer
+\end{tabbing}
+
+
+\vspace{.3in}
+
+\begin{center}
+Authors of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses''}{this part} are: \\
+Mike Linksvayer
+
+\vspace{.2in}
+
+Copy editors of this part include: \\
+You Please!
+
+\vspace{.2in}
+
+
+The copyright holders of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{this part} hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify,
+convey, Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
+Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.  A copy of that
+license is available at
+\url{https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode}.
+\end{center}
+}
+
+\bigskip
+
+\tutorialpartsplit{This tutorial}{This part of the tutorial} gives a
+comprehensive explanation of the most popular free-as-in-freedom copyright
+licenses for non-software works, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (``CC-BY-SA'', or sometimes just
+``BY-SA'') -- with an emphasis on the current version 4.0 (``CC-BY-SA-4.0'').
+
+Upon completion of this part of the tutorial, readers can expect
+to have learned the following:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+  \item The history and role of copyleft licenses for non-software works.
+  \item The differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA, especially with respect to copyleft policy.
+  \item The basic differences between CC-BY-SA versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 4.0.
+  \item An understanding of how CC-BY-SA-4.0 implements copyleft.
+  \item Where to find more resources about CC-BY-SA compliance.
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+% FIXME this list should be more aggressive, but material is not yet present
+
+\textbf{WARNING: As of November 2014 this part is brand new, and badly needs review, expansion, error correction, and more.}
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+% START OF COURSE
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+
+
+\chapter{Freedom as in Free Culture, Documentation, Education...}
+
+Critiques of copyright's role in concentrating power over and
+making culture inaccessible have existed throughout the history
+of copyright. Few contemporary arguments about ``copyright in the
+digital age'' have not already been made in the 1800s or before.
+Though one can find the occasional ad hoc ``anti-copyright'', ``no rights
+reserved'', or pro-sharing statement accompanying a publication,
+use of formalized public licenses for non-software works seems to
+have begun only after the birth of the free software movement and of
+widespread internet access among elite populations.
+
+Although they have much older antecedents, contemporary movements
+to create, share, and develop policy encouraging ``cultural
+commons'', ``open educational resources'', ``open access
+scientific publication'' and more, have all come of age in the
+last 10-15 years -- after the huge impact of free software was
+unmistakable. Additionally, these movements have tended to emphasize
+access, with permissions corresponding to the four freedoms of
+free software and the use of fully free public licenses as good
+but optional.
+
+It's hard not to observe that it seems the free software movement
+arose more or less shortly after as it became desirable (due to changes
+in the computing industry and software becoming unambiguously subject
+to copyright in the United States by 1983), but non-software movements
+for free-as-in-freedom knowledge only arose after they became more
+or less inevitable, and only begrudgingly at that. Had a free culture
+``constructed commons'' movement been successful prior to the birth
+of free software, the benefits to computing would have been great --
+consider the burdens of privileged access to proprietary culture for
+proprietary software through DRM and other mechanisms, toll access
+to computer science literature, and development of legal mechanisms
+and policy through pioneering trial-and-error.
+
+Alas, counterfactual optimism does not change the present -- but might
+embolden our visions of what freedom can be obtained and defended going
+forward. Copyleft policy will surely continue to be an important and
+controversial factor, so it's worth exploring the current version of
+the most popular copyleft license intended for use with non-software
+works, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
+(CC-BY-SA-4.0), the focus of this tutorial.
+
+
+\section{Free Definitions}
+
+When used to filter licenses, the Free Software Definition and
+Open Source Definition have nearly identical results. For licenses
+primarily intended for non-software works, the Definition of Free
+Cultural Works and Open Definition similarly have identical results,
+both with each other and with the software definitions which they
+imitate. All copyleft licenses for non-software works must be
+``free'' and ``open'' per these definitions.
+
+There are various other definitions of ``open access'', ``open
+content'', and ``open educational resources'' which are more subject
+to interpretation or do not firmly require the equivalent of all four
+freedoms of the free software definition. While these definitions
+are not pertinent to circumscribing the concept of copyleft -- which
+is about enforcing all four freedoms, for everyone. But copyleft
+licenses for non-software works are usually considered ``open''
+per these other definitions, if they are considered at all.
+
+The open access to scientific literature movement, for example,
+seems to have settled into advocacy for non-copyleft free licenses
+(CC-BY) on one hand, and acceptance of highly restrictive licenses
+or access without other permissions on the other. This creates
+practical problems: for example, nearly all scientific literature
+either may not be incorporated into Wikipedia (which uses CC-BY-SA)
+or may not incorporate material developed on Wikipedia -- both of
+which do happen, when the licenses allow it. This tutorial is not
+the place to propose solutions, but let this problem be a motivator
+for encouraging more widespread understanding of copyleft policy.
+
+
+\section{Non-software Copylefts}
+
+Copyleft is a compelling concept, so unsurprisingly there have been
+many attempts to apply it to non-software works -- starting with use
+of GPLv2 for documentation, then occasionally for other texts, and
+art in various media. Although the GPL was and is perfectly usable for
+any work subject to copyright, several factors were probably important
+in preventing it from being the dominant copyleft outside of software:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+  \item the GPL is clearly intended first as a software license, thus
+requiring some perspective to think of applying to non-software
+works;
+  \item the FSF's concern is software, and the organization has
+not strongly advocated for using the GPL for non-software works;
+  \item further due
+to the (now previous) importance of its hardcopy publishing business
+and desire to retain the ability to take legal action against people
+who might modify its statements of opinion, FSF even developed a
+non-GPL copyleft license specifically for documentation, the Free
+Documentation License (FDL; which ceases to be free and thus is not
+a copyleft if its ``invariant sections'' and similar features are
+used);
+  \item a large cultural gap and lack of population overlap between
+free software and other movements has limited knowledge transfer and
+abetted reinvention and relearning;
+  \item the question of what constitutes source
+(``preferred form of the work for making modifications'') for many
+non-software works.
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+As a result, several copyleft licenses for non-software works were
+developed, even prior to the existence of Creative Commons. These
+include the aforementioned FDL (1998), Design Science License (1999),
+Open Publication License (1999; like the FDL it has non-free options),
+Free Art License (2000), Open Game License (2000; non-free options),
+EFF Open Audio License (2001), LinuxTag Green OpenMusic License (2001;
+non-free options) and the QING Public License (2002). Additionally
+several copyleft licenses intended for hardware designs were proposed
+starting in the late 1990s if not sooner (the GPL was then and is now
+also commonly used for hardware designs, as is now CC-BY-SA).
+
+At the end of 2002 Creative Commons launched with 11 1.0 licenses
+and a public domain dedication. The 11 licenses consisted of every
+non-mutually exclusive combination of at least one of the Attribution
+(BY), NoDerivatives (ND), NonCommercial (NC), and ShareAlike
+(SA) conditions (ND and SA are mutually exclusive; NC and ND are
+non-free). Three of those licenses were free (as was the public domain
+dedication), two of them copyleft: CC-SA-1.0 and CC-BY-SA-1.0.
+
+Creative Commons licenses with the BY condition were more popular, so the 5
+without (including CC-SA) were not included in version 2.0 of the
+licenses. Although CC-SA had some advocates, all who felt
+very strongly in favor of free-as-in-freedom, its incompatibility
+with CC-BY-SA (meaning had CC-SA been widely used, the copyleft pool
+of works would have been further fragmented) and general feeling that
+Creative Commons had created too many licenses led copyleft advocates who hoped to
+leverage Creative Commons to focus on CC-BY-SA.
+
+Creative Commons began with a small amount of funding and notoriety, but its
+predecessors had almost none (FSF and EFF had both, but their entries
+were not major focuses of those organizations), so Creative Commons licenses
+(copyleft and non-copyleft, free and non-free) quickly came to
+dominate the non-software public licensing space. The author of the
+Open Publication License came to recommend using Creative Commons licenses, and the
+EFF declared version 2.0 of the Open Audio License compatible with
+CC-BY-SA and suggested using the latter. Still, at least one copyleft
+license for ``creative'' works was released after Creative Commons launched: the
+Against DRM License (2006), though it did not achieve wide adoption.
+Finally a font-specific copyleft license (SIL Open Font License) was introduced
+in 2005 (again the GPL, with a ``font exception'', was and is now
+also used for fonts).
+
+Although CC-BY-SA was used for licensing ``databases'' almost from
+its launch, and still is, copyleft licenses specifically intended to be
+used for databases were proposed starting from the mid-2000s. The most
+prominent of those is the Open Database License (ODbL; 2009). As we
+can see public software licenses following the subjection of software
+to copyright, interest in public licenses for databases followed the
+EU database directive mandating ``sui generis database rights'',
+which began to be implemented in member state law starting from
+1998. How CC-BY-SA versions address databases is covered below.
+
+\subsection{Aside on share-alike non-free therefore non-copylefts}
+
+%FIXME section needs footnotes
+
+Many licenses intended for use with non-software works include the
+``share-alike'' aspect of copyleft: if adaptations are distributed,
+to comply with the license they must be offered under the same terms.
+But some (excluding those discussed above) do not grant users the
+equivalent of all four software freedoms. Such licenses aren't
+true copylefts, as they retain a prominent exclusive property
+right aspect for purposes other than enforcing all four freedoms
+for everyone. What these licenses create are ``semicommons'' or
+mixed private property/commons regimes, as opposed to the commons
+created by all free licenses, and protected by copyleft licenses. One
+reason non-free public licenses might be common outside software, but
+rare for software, is that software more obviously requires ongoing
+maintenance. Without control concentrated through copyright assignment
+or highly asymmetric contributor license agreements, multi-contributor
+maintenance quickly creates an ``anticommons'' -- e.g., nobody has
+adequate rights to use commercially.
+
+These non-free share-alike licenses often aggravate freedom and
+copyleft advocates as the licenses sound attractive, but typically
+are confusing, probably do not help and perhaps stymie the cause of
+freedom. There is an argument that non-free licenses offer conservative
+artists, publishers, and others the opportunity to take baby steps,
+and perhaps support better policy when they realize total control is
+not optimal, or to eventually migrate to free licenses. Unfortunately
+no rigorous analysis of any of these conjectures. The best that
+can be done might be to promote education about and effective use
+of free copyleft licenses (as this tutorial aims to do) such that
+conjectures about the impact of non-free licenses become about as
+interesting as the precise terms of proprietary software EULAs --
+demand freedom instead.
+
+In any case, some of these non-free share-alike licenses (also
+watch out for aforementioned copyleft licenses with non-free and thus
+non-copyleft options) include: Open Content License (1998), Free Music
+Public License (2001), LinuxTag Yellow, Red, and Rainbow OpenMusic
+Licenses (2001), Open Source Music License (2002), Creative Commons
+NonCommercial-ShareAlike and Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
+Licenses (2002), Common Good Public License (2003), and Peer Production
+License (2013). CC-BY-NC-SA is by far the most widespread of these,
+and has been versioned with the other Creative Commons licenses, through the current
+version 4.0 (2013).
+
+\chapter{Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike}
+
+The remainder of this tutorial
+exclusively concerns the most widespread copyleft license intended
+for non-software works, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
+(CC-BY-SA). But, there are actually many CC-BY-SA licenses -- 5
+versions (6 if you count version 2.1, a bugfix for a few jurisdiction
+``porting'' mistakes), ports to 60 jurisdictions -- 96 distinct
+CC-BY-SA licenses in total. After describing CC-BY-SA and how it
+differs from the GPL at a high level, we'll have an overview of the
+various CC-BY-SA licenses, then a section-by-section walkthrough of
+the most current and most clear of them -- CC-BY-SA-4.0.
+
+CC-BY-SA allows anyone to share and adapt licensed material, for
+any purpose, subject to providing credit and releasing adaptations
+under the same terms. The preceding sentence is a severe abridgement
+of the ``human readable'' license summary or ``deed'' provided by
+Creative Commons at the canonical URL for one of the CC-BY-SA licenses
+-- the actual license or ``legalcode'' is a click away. But this
+abridgement, and the longer the summary provided by Creative Commons
+are accurate in that they convey CC-BY-SA is a free, copyleft license.
+
+\section{GPL and CC-BY-SA differences}
+
+% FIXME this section ought refernece GPL portion of tutorial extensively
+
+There are several differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA that are
+particularly pertinent to their analysis as copyleft licenses.
+
+The most obvious such difference is that CC-BY-SA does not require
+offering works in source form, that is their preferred form for making
+modifications. Thus CC-BY-SA makes a huge tradeoff relative to the
+GPL -- CC-BY-SA dispenses with a whole class of compliance questions
+which are more ambiguous for some creative works than they are for most
+software -- but in so doing it can be seen as a much weaker copyleft.
+
+Copyleft is sometimes described as a ``hack'' or ``judo move''
+on copyright, but the GPL makes two moves, though it can be hard to
+notice they are conceptually different moves, without the contrast
+provided by a license like CC-BY-SA, which only substantially makes
+one move. The first move is to neutralize copyright restrictions --
+adaptations, like the originally licensed work, will effectively
+not be private property (of course they are subject to copyright,
+but nobody can exercise that copyright to prevent others' use). If
+copyright is a privatized regulatory system (it is), the first move
+is deregulatory. The second move is regulatory -- the GPL requires
+offer of source form, a requirement that would not hold if copyright
+disappeared, absent a different regulatory regime which mandated source
+revelation (one can imagine such a regime on either ``pragmatic''
+grounds, e.g., in the interest of consumer protection, or on the
+grounds of enforcing software freedom as a universal human right).
+
+% FIXME analysis of differences in copyleft scope (eg interplay of
+% derivative works, modified copies, collections, aggregations, containers) would
+% be good here but might be difficult to avoid novel research
+
+CC-BY-SA makes the first move\footnote{See
+\url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_interpretation}.} but adds
+the second in a limited fashion. It does not require offer of preferred
+form for modification nor any variation thereof (e.g., the FDL
+requires access to a ``transparent copy''). CC-BY-SA does prohibit
+distribution with ``effective technical measures'' (i.e., digital
+restrictions management or DRM) if doing so limits the freedoms granted
+by the license. We can see that this is regulatory because absent
+copyright and any regime specifically limiting DRM, such distribution
+would be perfectly legal. Note the GPL does not prohibit distribution
+with DRM, although its source requirement makes DRM superfluous, and
+somewhat analogously, of course GPLv3 carefully regulates distribution
+of GPL'd software with locked-down devices -- to put it simply, it
+requires keys rather than prohibiting locks. Occasionally a freedom
+advocate will question whether CC-BY-SA's DRM prohibition makes
+CC-BY-SA a non-free license. Few if any questioners come down on the
+side of CC-BY-SA being non-free, perhaps for two reasons: first,
+overwhelming dislike of DRM, thus granting the possibility that
+CC-BY-SA's approach could be appropriate for a license largely
+used for cultural works; second, the DRM prohibition in CC-BY-SA
+(and all CC licenses) seems to be mainly expressive -- there are
+no known enforcements, despite the ubiquity of DRM in games, apps,
+and media which utilize assets under various CC licenses.
+
+Another obvious difference between the GPL and CC-BY-SA is that the
+former is primarily intended to be used for software, and the latter
+for cultural works (and, with version 4.0, databases). Although those
+are the overwhelming majority of uses of each license, there are areas
+in which both are used, e.g., for hardware design and interactive
+cultural works, where there is not a dominant copyleft practice or
+the line between software and non-software is not absolutely clear.
+
+This brings us to the third obvious difference, and provides a reason
+to mitigate it: the GPL and CC-BY-SA are not compatible, and have
+slightly different compatibility mechanisms. One cannot mix GPL and
+CC-BY-SA works in a way that creates a derivative work and comply
+with either of them. This could change -- CC-BY-SA-4.0 introduced\footnote{
+\url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_compatibility}}
+the possibility of Creative Commons declaring CC-BY-SA-4.0 one-way
+(as a donor) compatible with another copyleft license -- the GPL is
+obvious candidate for such compatibility. Discussion is expected to
+begin in late 2014, with a decision sometime in 2015. If this one-way
+compatibility were to be enacted, one could create an adaptation of
+a CC-BY-SA work and release the adaptation under the GPL, but not
+vice-versa -- which makes sense given that the GPL is the stronger
+copyleft.
+
+The GPL has no externally declared compatibility with other licenses
+mechanism (and note no action from the FSF would be required for
+CC-BY-SA-4.0 to be made one-way compatible with the GPL). The GPL's
+compatibility mechanism for later versions of itself differs from
+CC-BY-SA's in two ways: the GPL's is optional, and allows for use
+of the licensed work and adaptations under later versions; CC-BY-SA's
+is non-optional, but only allows for adaptations under later versions.
+
+Fourth, using slightly different language, the GPL and CC-BY-SA's
+coverage of copyright and similar restrictions should be identical for
+all intents and purposes (GPL explicitly notes ``semiconductor mask
+rights'' and CC-BY-SA-4.0 ``database rights'' but neither excludes
+any copyright-like restrictions).  But on patents, the licenses are
+rather different. CC-BY-SA-4.0 explicitly does not grant any patent
+license, while previous versions were silent. GPLv3 has an explicit
+patent license, while GPLv2's patent license is implied (see \ref{gpl-implied-patent-grant}
+and \ref{GPLv3-drm} for details). This difference ought give serious pause
+to anyone considering use of CC-BY-SA for works potentially subject
+to patents, especially any potential licensee if CC-BY-SA licensor
+holds such patents. Fortunately Creative Commons has always strongly
+advised against using any of its licenses for software, and that
+advice is usually heeded; but in the space of hardware designs Creative
+Commons has been silent, and unfortunately from a copyleft (i.e., use
+mechanisms at disposal to enforce user freedom) perspective, CC-BY-SA
+is commonly used (all the more reason to enable one-way compatibility,
+allowing such projects to migrate to the stronger copyleft).
+
+The final obvious difference pertinent to copyleft policy between
+the GPL and CC-BY-SA is purpose. The GPL's preamble makes it clear
+its goal is to guarantee software freedom for all users, and even
+without the preamble, it is clear that this is the Free Software
+Foundation''s driving goal. CC-BY-SA (and other CC licenses) state
+no purpose, and (depending on version) are preceded with a disclaimer
+and neutral ``considerations for'' licensors and licensees to
+think about (the CC0 public domain dedication is somewhat of an
+exception; it does have a statement of purpose, but even that has
+more of a feel of expressing yes-I-really-mean-to-do-this than a
+social mission). Creative Commons has always included elements
+of merely offering copyright holders additional choices and of
+purposefully creating a commons. While CC-BY-SA (and initially
+CC-SA) were just among the 11 non-mutually exclusive combinations
+of ``BY'', ``NC'', ``ND'', and ``SA'', freedom advocates
+quickly adopted CC-BY-SA as ``the'' copyleft for non-software works
+(surpassing previously existing non-software copylefts mentioned
+above). Creative Commons has at times recognized the special role of
+CC-BY-SA among its licenses, e.g., in a \href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent}{statement of intent}
+regarding the license made in order to assure Wikimedians considering
+changing their default license from the FDL to CC-BY-SA that the
+latter, including its steward, was acceptably aligned with the
+Wikimedia movement (itself probably more directly aligned with software
+freedom than any other major non-software commons).
+
+% FIXME possibly explain why purpose might be relevant, eg copyleft
+% instrument as totemic expression, norm-setting, idea-spreading
+
+% FIXME possibly mention that CC-BY-SA license text is free (CC0)
+
+There are numerous other differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA that
+are not particularly interesting for copyleft policy, such as the
+exact form of attribution and notice, and how license translations
+are handled. Many of these have changed over the course of CC-BY-SA
+versioning.
+
+\section{CC-BY-SA versions}
+
+%FIXME section ought explain jurisdiction ports
+
+This section gives a brief overview of changes across the main versions
+(1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0) of CC-BY-SA, again focused on changes
+pertinent to copyleft policy. Creative Commons maintains a \href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions}{page}
+detailing all significant changes across versions of all of its CC-BY* licenses,
+in many cases linking to detailed discussion of individual changes.
+
+As of late 2014, versions 2.0 (the one called ``Generic''; there are
+also 18 jurisdiction ports) and 3.0 (called ``Unported''; there are
+also 39 ports) are by far the most widely used. 2.0 solely because it
+is the only version that the proprietary web image publishing service
+Flickr has ever supported. It hosts 27 million CC-BY-SA-2.0 photos
+\footnote{As of November 2014. See \url{https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/} for counts.} and remains the go-to general
+source for free images (though it may eventually be supplanted by
+Wikimedia Commons, some new proprietary service, or a federation of
+free image sharing sites, perhaps powered by GNU MediaGlobin). 3.0
+both because it was the current version far longer (2007-2013) than
+any other and because it has been adopted as the default license for
+most Wikimedia projects.
+
+However apart from the brief notes on each version, we will focus on
+4.0 for a section-by-section walkthrough in the next section, as 4.0
+is improved in several ways, including understandability, and should
+eventually become the most widespread version, both because 4.0 is
+intended to remain the current version for the indefinite and long
+future, and it would be reasonable to predict that Wikimedia projects
+will make CC-BY-SA-4.0 their default license in 2015 or 2016.
+
+% FIXME subsections might not be the right strcuture or formatting here
+
+\subsection{1.0 (2002-12-16)}
+CC-BY-SA-1.0 set the expectation for future
+versions. But the most notable copyleft policy feature (apart from
+the high level differences with GPLv2, such as not requiring source)
+was no measure for compatibility with future versions (nor with the
+CC-SA-1.0, also a copyleft license, nor with pre-existing copyleft
+licenses such as GPL, FDL, FAL, and others, nor with CC jurisdiction
+ports, of which there were 3 for 1.0).
+
+\subsection{2.0 (2004-05-25)}
+CC-BY-SA-2.0 made itself compatible with
+future versions and CC jurisdiction ports of the same version. Creative
+Commons did not version CC-SA, leaving CC-BY-SA-2.0 as ``the'' CC
+copyleft license. CC-BY-SA-2.0 also adds the only clarification of
+what constitutes a derivative work, making ``synchronization of the
+Work in timed-relation with a moving image'' subject to copyleft.
+
+\subsection{2.5 (2005-06-09)}
+CC-BY-SA-2.5 makes only one change, to allow
+licensor to designate another party to receive attribution. This
+does not seem interesting for copyleft policy, but the context of the
+change is: it was promoted by the desire to make attribution of mass
+collaborations easy (and on the other end of the spectrum, to make it
+possible to clearly require giving attribution to a publisher, e.g.,
+of a journal). There was a brief experiment in branding CC-BY-SA-2.5
+as the ``CC-wiki'' license. This was an early step toward Wikimedia
+adopting CC-BY-SA-3.0, four years later.
+
+\subsection{3.0 (2007-02-23)}
+CC-BY-SA-3.0 introduced a mechanism for
+externally declaring bilateral compatibility with other licenses. This
+mechanism to date has not been used for CC-BY-SA-3.0, in part because
+another way was found for Wikimedia projects to change their default
+license from FDL to CC-BY-SA: the Free Software Foundation released
+FDL 1.3, which gave a time-bound permission for mass collaboration
+sites to migrate to CC-BY-SA. While not particularly pertinent to
+copyleft policy, it's worth noting for anyone wishing to study
+old versions in depth that 3.0 is the first version to substantially
+alter the text of most of the license, motivated largely by making
+the text use less U.S.-centric legal language. The 3.0 text is also
+considerably longer than previous versions.
+
+\subsection{4.0 (2013-11-25)}
+CC-BY-SA-4.0 added to 3.0's
+external compatibility declaration mechanism by allowing one-way
+compatibility. After release of CC-BY-SA-4.0 bilateral compatibility
+was reached with FAL-1.3. As previously mentioned, one-way
+compatibility with GPLv3 will soon be discussed.
+
+4.0 also made a subtle change in that an adaptation may be considered
+to be licensed solely under the adapter's license (currently
+CC-BY-SA-4.0 or FAL-1.3, in the future potentially GPLv3 or or
+a hypothetical CC-BY-SA-5.0). In previous versions licenses were
+deemed to ``stack'' -- if a work under CC-BY-SA-2.0 were adapted
+and released under CC-BY-SA-3.0, users of the adaptation would
+need to comply with both licenses. In practice this is an academic
+distinction, as compliance with any compatible license would tend to
+mean compliance with the original license. But for a licensee using
+a large number of works that wished to be extremely rigorous, this
+would be a large burden, for it would mean understanding every license
+(including those of jurisdiction ports not in English) in detail.
+
+The new version is also an even more complete rewrite of 3.0 than 3.0
+was of previous versions, completing the ``internationalization''
+of the license, and actually decreasing in length and increasing
+in readability.
+
+Additionally, 4.0 consistently treats database (licensing them
+like other copyright-like rights) and moral rights (waiving them to
+the extent necessary to exercise granted freedoms) -- in previous
+versions some jurisdiction ports treated these differently -- and
+tentatively eliminates the need for jurisdiction ports. Official
+linguistic translations are underway (Finnish is the first completed)
+and no legal ports are planned for.
+
+4.0 is the first version to explicitly exclude a patent (and less
+problematically, trademark) license. It also adds two features akin to
+those found in GPLv3: waiver of any right licensor may have to enforce
+anti-circumvention if DRM is applied to the work, and reinstatement
+of rights after termination if non-compliance corrected within 30 days.
+
+Finally, 4.0 streamlines the attribution requirement, possibly of some
+advantage to massive long-term collaborations which historically have
+found copyleft licenses a good fit.
+
+The 4.0 versioning process was much more extensively researched,
+public, and documented than previous CC-BY-SA versionings;
+see \url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0} for the record and
+\url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4} for a summary of
+final decisions.
+
+
+\section{CC-BY-SA-4.0 International section-by-section}
+
+% FIXME arguably this section ought be the substance of the tutorial, but is very thin and weak now
+
+% FIXME formatted/section-referenced copy of license should be added to license-texts.tex
+% and referenced througout
+
+The best course of action at this juncture would be to read
+\url{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode} -- the entire
+text is fairly easy to read, and should be quickly understood if one
+has the benefit of study of other public licenses and of copyleft
+policy.
+
+The following walk-through will simply call out portions of each
+section one may wish to study especially closely due to their
+pertinence to copyleft policy issues mentioned above.
+
+% FIXME subsections might not be the right strcuture or formatting here
+
+\subsection{1 -- Definitions}
+
+The first three definitions -- ``Adapted Material'', ``Adapter's
+License'', and ``BY-SA Compatible License'' are crucial to
+understanding copyleft scope and compatibility.
+
+\subsection{2 -- Scope}
+
+The license grant is what makes all four freedoms available to
+licensees. This section is also where waiver of DRM anti-circumvention
+is to be found, also patent and trademark exclusions.
+
+\subsection{3 -- License Conditions}
+
+This section contains the details
+of the attribution and share-alike requirements; the latter read
+closely with aforementioned definitions describe the copyleft aspect
+of CC-BY-SA-4.0.
+
+\subsection{4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights}
+
+This section describes how the previous grant and condition sections
+apply in the case of a database subject to sui generis database
+rights. This is an opportunity to go down a rabbit-hole of trying to
+understand sui generis database rights. Generally, this is a pointless
+exercise. You can comply with the license in the same way you would if
+the work were subject only to copyright -- and determining whether a
+database is subject to copyright and/or sui generis database rights is
+another pit of futility. You can license databases under CC-BY-SA-4.0
+and use databases subject to the same license as if they were any other
+sort of work.
+
+\subsection{5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability}
+
+Unsurprisingly, this section does its best to serve as an ``absolute
+disclaimer and waiver of all liability.''
+
+\subsection{6 -- Term and Termination}
+
+This section is similar to GPLv3, but without special provision for
+cases in which the licensor wishes to terminate even cured violations.
+
+\subsection{7 -- Other Terms and Conditions}
+
+Though it uses different language, like the GPL, CC-BY-SA-4.0 does
+not allow additional restrictions not contained in the license. Unlike
+the GPL, CC-BY-SA-4.0 does not have an explicit additional permissions
+framework, although effectively a licensor can offer any other terms
+if they are the sole copyright holder (the license is non-exclusive),
+including the sorts of permissions that would be structured as
+additional permissions with the GPL. Creative Commons has sometimes
+called offering of separate terms (whether additional permissions or
+``proprietary relicensing'') the confusing name ``CC+''; however
+where this is encountered at all it is usually in conjunction with one
+of the non-free CC licenses. Perhaps CC-BY-SA is not a strong enough
+copyleft to sometimes require additional permissions, or be used to
+gain commercially valuable asymmetric rights, in contrast with the GPL.
+
+\subsection{8 -- Interpretation}
+
+Nothing surprising here. Note that CC-BY-SA does not ``reduce, limit,
+restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that
+could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.''
+This is a point that Creative Commons has always been eager to make
+about all of its licenses. GPLv3 also ``acknowledges your rights
+of fair use or other equivalent''. This may be a wise strategy,
+but should not be viewed as mandatory for any copyleft license --
+indeed, the ODbL attempts (somewhat self-contradictorily; it also
+acknowledges fair use or other rights to use) make its conditions
+apply even for works potentially subject to neither copyright nor
+sui generis database rights.
+
+
+\section{Enforcement}
+
+There are only a small number of court cases involving any Creative
+Commons license. Creative Commons lists these and some related cases
+at \url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law}.
+
+Only two of those cases concern enforcing the terms of a CC-BY-SA
+license (Gerlach v. DVU in Germany, and No. 71036 N. v. Newspaper
+in a private Rabbinical tribunal) each hinged on attribution,
+not share-alike.
+
+Further research could uncover out of compliance uses being
+brought into compliance without lawsuit, however no such
+research, nor any hub for conducting such compliance work,
+is known. Editors of Wikimedia Commons document some external
+uses of Commons-hosted media, including whether user are compliant
+with the relevant license for the media (often CC-BY-SA), resulting in a 
+\href{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_reused_by_external_parties_out_of_compliance_with_licensing_terms}{category} listing non-compliant uses (which seem to almost exclusively concern attribution).
+
+\section{Compliance Resources}
+
+% FIXME this section is just a stub; ideally there would also be an addition section
+% or chapter on CC-BY-SA compliance
+
+Creative Commons has a page on
+\href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_interpretation}{ShareAlike
+interpretation} as well as an extensive Frequently Asked Questions
+\href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#For_Licensees}{for
+licensees} which addresses compliance with the attribution condition.
+
+\href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content}{English
+Wikipedia}'s and
+\href{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia}{Wikimedia
+Commons}' pages on using material outside of Wikimedia projects provide
+valuable information, as the majority of material on those sites is
+CC-BY-SA licensed, and their practices are high-profile.
+
+% FIXME there is no section on business use of CC-BY-SA; there probably ought to be 
+% as there is one for GPL, though there'd be much less to put.
+
+% =====================================================================
+% END OF ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE SECTION
+% =====================================================================
+
+%%  LocalWords:  ShareAlike
