Looking at the data dump for the recently closed Freelancers Stack Exchange beta, I note the license.txt file reads:

So let me clarify what we mean by attribution. If you republish this content, we require that you:

  1. Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow, Stack Overflow Meta, Server Fault, or Super User in some way. It doesn#t have to be obnoxious; a discreet text blurb is fine.

...

Since this is in the clarification part of the attribution requirement, rather than the license requirement itself (i.e., the assertion of CC-WIKI), the omission of any reference to the Stack Exchange 2.0 sites is a minor point, but it might suggest to pernickety readers that the wrong license text has been bundled.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes, the text file existed before Stack Exchange 2.0 existed, and was not updated to reflect.

The two most recent data dumps have a corrected file that references the whole network and not just the trilogy + MSO.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I've put some static pages up with the content of the failed Freelancers Meta, with a discussion of the license page at:

http://www.textproof.com/ar/freelancers-meta/license.html

If there's anything that falls short of what I should do, please tell me. Otherwise, I suggest that what I did is a reasonable interpretation of the license, given problems applying the rule to link to users' pages on Stack Overflow, etc.

share|improve this answer
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .