Not sure where the metadata came from, honestly. It's licenced under 3.0, but if 4.0 works better for you, that's fine. The licensing is all based on what I want anyway, it's not like Creative Commons has any say on what I want to do with my art. ;)
The metadata should be something you select from a dropdown, judging by the screenshots of the Itch.io creator UI that I’ve seen.
Either way, it’s more that, as stated, it causes uncertainty for you to have two different statements of what the license is with neither clearly overruling the other or saying that the reader may choose whichever of the two they prefer.
Ah, that's right, I forgot. There wasn't an option for 3.0 in the drop down. This has been up on itch.io for about 4 years, so I've forgotten. I appreciate the concern, but I think it's going to be okay to keep it like this, because I'm lazy and updating it here would mean I'd need to update it elsewhere too. I'm partial to 3.0 because I understand it better, but it's my understanding that the main differences between 3.0 and 4.0 was how it handled the anti-drm clause, which has been waived anyway, which is why I'm not fussy about which one it's licenced under. My main concerns with licensing is that I am credited, that others don't sell the artwork itself for profit or claim it as their own, and I'd like for others to share any major modifications they make. Using Creative Commons is just an easy shorthand for that concept. If people need a slightly different license, I'm flexible. If someone needs a more detailed explanation, I'm willing to give it. I don't really care about getting into the nitty gritty details of exactly what is and isn't okay, that's not the point of me sharing my artwork, and I don't think it should really come up for someone wanting to use my art in a way that's fair to me. As long as someone isn't trying to figure out the exact nature of the rules so they can legally be unfair in their treatment of me, everything should be fine.
I respect that. My concern is that, for my list, I’m wary of active ambiguity like that because I’m trying to plan for situations where the creator is no longer reachable for clarification and someone might have only archived the description and/or metadata block.
(Plus, I’m just generally wary of ambiguity from all my time reading tech law blogs.)
Is there anyway I could convince you to tweak either the description or the metadata block so it’s completely clear to anyone who doesn’t read the comments whether you intend “your choice of CC-BY 3.0 or CC-BY 4.0” or for one to trump the other and, if so, which one?