Timeline for CC-by-SA vs MIT - The 2016 battle
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:45 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, I appreciate your offer to discuss this over email, but all the same, I'd prefer not to do that. And I also appreciate your restraint in not accessing my PII without my express consent. That corroborates my impression that you mean well. Thanks. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:38 | comment | added | user50049 | @sampablokuper I'm not going to take the liberty of accessing your PII in order to initiate a sidebar discussion. But I think we could clear quite a bit up in the span of a few emails. Perhaps you could, just say hello? I'm perfectly content if you make those emails public, it's this comment format that I'm trying to escape :) | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:33 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, I think you mean well, but your remarks over the last few weeks have given me the impression that your grasp of software licensing is no better than your grasp of SE users' likely overall reaction to being railroaded into a poorly thought-out, poorly justified licensing change. You have recently made statements I believe to be false (and in Marco's case above, recklessly false), and your legal counsel is apparently either atrocious or is being ignored. I am trying, from the other side of the world, in my spare time, to stem that harm. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:23 | comment | added | user50049 | @sampablokuper If we're going to talk, as in actually communicate concepts that we both hope the other will evaluate and reply to - about 300% less tension is going to be needed. I'm [email protected], you're welcome to email me. I'm pretty sure I'm not what your tone says you think I am :) | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:18 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, "That wasn't paraphrasing. That was hyperbole." I'm unconvinced a semantically equivalent statement can be anything other than a paraphrase, and I don't believe my paraphrase was any more hyperbolic than yours. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:11 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, "just like busybox works with hordes of people that don't understand the GPL and are technically breaking the license." AFAIK, the BusyBox licensors first ask violators to rectify their violations by complying with the GPL. This is analogous to my advice to Marco above ("Rectify") and is in marked contrast to your advice to him ("You don't really have anything to worry about"). If BusyBox doesn't obtain compliance after requesting it, then they may sue (rightly so) & have sued successfully multiple times. Also, to re-iterate, SE is not the licensor. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:04 | comment | added | user50049 | @sampablokuper That wasn't paraphrasing. That was hyperbole, and borderline ad-hominem. I will post an answer tomorrow, you're welcome to comment then. Have a great (rest of) the weekend :) | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 18:01 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, "where did I say "Yep, fine, whatevs?"" I was, very obviously, paraphrasing your statement, "You don't really have anything to worry about," which is semantically equivalent to my paraphrase of it. "Don't put words in my mouth." I'm not going anywhere near your mouth, Tim. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 17:57 | comment | added | user50049 | @sampablokuper I'll be adding an answer tomorrow. A part of the new license rollout was going to include some information for people that aren't just scraping our stuff and didn't understand the requirements. We'd rather help people understand and correct honest mistakes (just like busybox works with hordes of people that don't understand the GPL and are technically breaking the license). Gross abdication? I said I'd post an answer when more things were clear, and I will. And where did I say "Yep, fine, whatevs?" Don't put words in my mouth. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 3:52 | comment | added | user136089 | @MarcoAurélioDeleu, you should ignore TimPost's reassurance above. He is not in a position to legally indemnify you against the licensors of the content you say you plagiarized, if they decide to pursue you for infringement. For good reason, "the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and bind users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license." (Source.) Rectify instead. | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 3:27 | comment | added | user136089 | @TimPost, "You don't really have anything to worry about". The OP admits breaking the license terms on a significant scale (1000 loc!) and you say, "Yup, fine, whatevs"?! That's a gross abdication of your (SE's) duties and moreover a breach of your (SE's) contract as a licensee of the content in question, because it implies you are granting the OP additional rights that are not in fact yours to grant. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 22:12 | answer | added | Thomas Owens | timeline score: 18 | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 21:22 | history | edited | Shadow Wizard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 14, 2016 at 21:00 | answer | added | Pollyanna | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 6:33 | comment | added | user50049 | I'm the director of Stack Overflow Communities, and pretty involved in this project. tl;dr; - You don't really have anything to worry about, and I'm working on an answer in that direction. We're still in a bit of flux after the great feedback we received when we announced the change - so it's kinda hard to answer this completely while we still have some pretty important decisions to make before we open another discussion with a revised scheme. I'm going to try to bump up some meetings to make these decisions so the answer I want to write has a firmer base. Hang tight. | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 23:46 | answer | added | unor | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 21:58 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | True, then the OP can post that he doesn't want attribution. And just put in the url of the post in your code, as suggested in my answer. That's all. | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 21:45 | comment | added | Marco Aurélio Deleu | @PatrickHofman When I put effort into answering a question and help someone overcome a problem, I don't expect them to put my name and the link of the question into their closed-source project. That's just unnecessary and give them an extra work. | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 21:32 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | I guess Shog9 meant why you need to copy a function name like in your sample. Maybe your sample is not what you actually meant as 1000 lines or code. | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 20:40 | comment | added | Marco Aurélio Deleu | Why wouldn't I copy and paste? Why would I go through the trouble of remembering and typing it out what is already digitally written on the screen? Not to mention that Stackoverflow has a lot of answers that consist of more than 1 line of code. | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 19:12 | comment | added | Shog9 | Why would you be copying one line of code from Stack Overflow? If you can't remember "array_unshift" while flipping between browser and editor, you may wanna get some rest. | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 18:43 | comment | added | TRiG | Why would you be copying a thousand lines of code from Stack Overflow? | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 16:18 | answer | added | Patrick Hofman | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 15:13 | comment | added | WBT | See: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/286582/… | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 15:05 | history | asked | Marco Aurélio Deleu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |