Timeline for Is this copy/paste from an offline but not CC-licensed source acceptable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 19, 2013 at 17:42 | answer | added | SztupY | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 19, 2013 at 17:11 | comment | added | Bart | To me that seems to go too far beyond a quote to be permissible. And the statement that it's not CC-licensed does not make much sense when posting it here. You're effectively re-licensing it and I'd say this goes beyond "fair use". Then again, from what I recall in previous situations the approach has not always been to police this, if the original author undertakes no action. | |
| Apr 19, 2013 at 17:10 | comment | added | Charles | There's also a huge difference between a quote (fair use?) and a complete replication of an entire article. | |
| Apr 19, 2013 at 17:03 | comment | added | Servy | To generalize the question a bit more, if content on a post is clearly a quote, does the CC-wiki licence apply to it? | |
| Apr 19, 2013 at 16:49 | history | asked | Charles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |