Draft 2 Treatment: In response to feedback on draft 1, we have heavily edited the language to make the license easier to understand. (Indeed, this is the primary reason we are not producing a redline comparison of d1 to d2, given the number of changes.) However, the effort to use plain language remains ongoing and will be a particularly strong area of emphasis once the substance of the license is finalized in the coming weeks. Please bear with us, and keep the constructive comments coming.
We also continue to incorporate changes to account for differences depending on jurisdiction. For example, we have included a provision allowing licensors to disclaim liabilities differently from the standard terms or to provide warranties, which accommodates differences in consumer laws worldwide and supports licensors who care (deeply) that their liabilities are limited and warranties are disclaimed in the manner they find most suitable. (See discussion on disclaimers.) Another example of continued internationalization includes incorporation of WIPO Copyright Treaty language in the definition of Share.
We continue to solicit input on how to further internationalize the license. Look for information about how the license is intended to operate in this d2 discussion period, leading into a concrete discussion about license interpretation prior to publication of d3.
Internationalization as of 3.0
Prior to version 3.0, CC drafted the core license suite against U.S. copyright law, referring to those licenses as the "generic" or "unported" licenses. With 3.0, Creative Commons changed its approach and deliberately chose to use the language of major international copyright treaties and conventions.  We introduced a new provision in the unported licenses (renamed the "international licenses" in 2009/2010) to make this explicit, and to provide an automatic localization rule for the international licenses:
- The rights granted under, and the subject matter referenced, in this License were drafted utilizing the terminology of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979), the Rome Convention of 1961, the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 and the Universal Copyright Convention (as revised on July 24, 1971). These rights and subject matter take effect in the relevant jurisdiction in which the License terms are sought to be enforced according to the corresponding provisions of the implementation of those treaty provisions in the applicable national law. If the standard suite of rights granted under applicable copyright law includes additional rights not granted under this License, such additional rights are deemed to be included in the License; this License is not intended to restrict the license of any rights under applicable law.
Logic for further internationalization
Further internationalization of the CC license suite is a high priority:
- An all too frequent complaint and possible inhibitor to adoption of CC continues to be the perception (justly deserved at times, though we've been working on changing that for awhile! ) that CC and its licenses are "U.S.-centric." This adversely affects our entire community, not just CC headquarters.
- Although 55+ jurisdictions have ported some version of the CC licenses to their jurisdiction, there are more than twice that number of signatories to major copyright treaties that do not have ported licenses in their jurisdictions. We want to be sure that the international suite addresses the needs (both legal and cultural) of users in all jurisdictions.
- Having a more internationally accepted and understood license suite gives added confidence to those who do not wish to use a ported license for any number of reasons.
- Licensing data suggests a trend in preference for using the international licenses over ports, thus there is a real benefit to ensuring the international suite is as understood and widely-accepted as possible. 
4.0 drafting and policy considerations
- To successfully accomplish the goal of further internationalization, full participation and engagement by all of our CC affiliates (including those who have successfully ported the licenses) is expected, as well as the participation of broader community. Please help identify ways we can improve the international suite to remove impediments to their usability in your jurisdiction (see below).
- Creative Commons licenses have a solid enforcement record as currently drafted. Introducing new or modified language or terms and conditions should be done cautiously to avoid compromising this record. This consideration applies to all aspects of the 4.0 drafting process.
- The international licenses have been (and will continue to be) used in both civil law and common law jurisdictions. Are there improvements that ought be made to further ensure that the international licenses operate and are interpreted consistently across both systems?
- Creative Commons 3.0 licenses are drafted using terminology found in important international conventions and treaties.  What additional conventions and treaties should be consulted and what else ought be kept in mind if, as anticipated, the version 4.0 licenses are drafted for further global reach and use?
Please add other considerations here.
Proposals for internationalization in 4.0
For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.
[Note: these proposals are not necessarily mutually exclusive]
Please help us identify "general" drafting proposals and over-arching improvements that could be made to improve the international licenses so they operate as well as possible in your jurisdiction. For proposals to change specific provisions of the licenses to operate well with local law, please do not add those here but instead include those in an already-existing topic page or in the Sandbox.
Intl Proposal No. 1: Further align license definitions with those used in international copyright treaties such as Berne, the Rome Convention, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty where possible, accounting for differences.
- Cons: How does this affect the way the license operates in jurisdictions that are not a party to those treaties?
- Other comments:
- Treatment in 4.0 d.1: We made efforts to use terminology from international treaties where possible but also feel it important to signal in places more familiar terms for some users (e.g., in the definition of Adaptation, including the phrase “derived from” for those who are accustomed to the term “Derivative” instead, though the definition of Adaptation is designed to cover the rights regardless of how it is named under any particular law). We have also reduced the number of definitions in the license.
- Treatment in 4.0 d.2: Continued work to use internationally familiar language.
Intl Proposal No. 2: Incorporate universal drafting conventions and styles in the licenses (to date, based largely on U.S. conventions and styles).
- Other comments:
- Treatment in 4.0 d.1: We have tried to implement this proposal by referring to changes made in ported licenses. Please keep the suggestions coming.
- Treatment in 4.0 d.2: Same.
Intl Proposal No. 3: Account for differences between laws using accepted language and/or provisions that make clear that terms and conditions apply to the fullest extent permitted by (but not in contravention of) applicable law.
- Other comments: For a more detailed explanation of this issue, visit the License subject matter page.
- Treatment in 4.0 d.1: We have tried to make it clear which of the definitions vary according to applicable law, which are explicitly defined by the license terms, and which are generally defined by applicable law with some limited harmonization. This issue is described in further detail on the License Subject Matter page. We have also made clear in provisions that tend to vary in local treatment that the provision applies to the greatest extent possible, but not in contravention of local law where applicable. See, for example, the warranties and disclaimer provisions. We expect to formulate a proposal that will allow additional, limited terms to be added to the license to facilitate compliance with any relevant local consumer laws, much as the GPLv3 permits, and will solicit input on that proposal for the next draft.
- Treatment in 4.0 d.2: Same.
Please add other internationalization proposals here, and number them sequentially.
We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating these and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.
Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.
- The CC0 public domain dedication legal code, which is intended to operate internationally and without need for porting, may be instructive in developing an equally effective 4.0 license suite.
- Presentation by Paul Keller at the CC Global Summit dated 16 September, 2011.
- Presentation by Massimo Travostino at the CC Global Summit dated 16 September, 2011.
- See the version 3.0 announcement explaining changes.
- See Section 8(f) of the 3.0 international licenses.
- This is a discussion we have been having at the Board and staff levels for several years, and in which we have involved our affiliates regularly and actively sought their input. See the examples of that engagement at the preceding links.
- For example, there are more than 160 contracting parties to the Berne Convention.
- CC is also aware that many jurisdictions that have ported licenses in the past do not want to port in the future for any number of reasons. Those jurisdictions will also be served better by enhanced internationalization of the core, international suite.
- See Slide 7 of The future of noncommercial presentation from the CC 2011 Global Summit.
- See the case law database.
- See Comparison of treaties and license definitions for one analysis of how the definitions in version 3.0 align with conventions and treaties as of 2007.