Return to Answer

Just looking at some points you make.

Attribution will be required when you use code found at Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

I don't get it. Isn't that the case already?

Either I've missed something, or... nothing changes there?

Next one.

We understand that some users feel the new terms are not a perfect fit for certain sites, but we think fragmenting the license across the network will lead to ambiguity – the exact problem we’re trying to solve by updating the terms.

I can be mistaken, but I don't recall different sites of Stack Exchange family to have their content licensed differently. As the footer stays, "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". Currently it says so on any SE site. Then the license doesn't appear to be fragmented? There's no problem then, let's keep the old good traditions... But wait, you're now changing the license and it appears to cause problems. Isn't that a sign that something is done not in the right way?

This change is just a first step in establishing clarity for using code found on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

As I've mentioned above, the footer says the attribution is required... linking to Jeff's blog post. Anything you mention doesn't appear to contradict with the point of Jeff and hence the rules which we're complying now. In fact, the blog post is being more descriptive regarding the contribution.

Also, we want to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to provide feedback and we have time to consider it. We are more concerned with doing this right than doing it fast, so please let us know what you think about this proposed change.

...

We want to hear what you think. Barring any showstopper, these terms and a detailed FAQ will be rolled out March 1, 2016.

Woops. Doesn't it look like you won't consider the feedback provided there? I mean, possible at first, and evident now, the "showstopper" is the feedback posted here and in the previous thread of yours. This means that asking for the feedback doesn't make any sense... Or probably the question should be reworded (note that some of us have been already tempted to close it as "unclear what you're asking").

I'm not discussing the advantages of one license over another, just because I have no idea what it gives. You change the license and the reason of the change seems to be missing - if you'd like to receive more valuable feedback, probably it'd be better to list the FAQ you're mentioning.

Just looking at some points you make.

Attribution will be required when you use code found at Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

I don't get it. Isn't that the case already?

Either I've missed something, or... nothing changes there?

Next one.

We understand that some users feel the new terms are not a perfect fit for certain sites, but we think fragmenting the license across the network will lead to ambiguity – the exact problem we’re trying to solve by updating the terms.

I can be mistaken, but I don't recall different sites of Stack Exchange family to have their content licensed differently. As the footer stays, "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". Currently it says so on any SE site. Then the license doesn't appear to be fragmented? There's no problem then, let's keep the old good traditions... But wait, you're now changing the license and it appears to cause problems. Isn't that a sign that something is done not in the right way?

This change is just a first step in establishing clarity for using code found on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

As I've mentioned above, the footer says the attribution is required... linking to Jeff's blog post. Anything you mention doesn't appear to contradict with the point of Jeff and hence the rules which we're complying now. In fact, the blog post is being more descriptive regarding the contribution.

Also, we want to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to provide feedback and we have time to consider it. We are more concerned with doing this right than doing it fast, so please let us know what you think about this proposed change.

...

We want to hear what you think. Barring any showstopper, these terms and a detailed FAQ will be rolled out March 1, 2016.

Woops. Doesn't it look like you won't consider the feedback provided there? I mean, possible at first, and evident now, the "showstopper" is the feedback posted here and in the previous thread of yours. This means that asking for the feedback doesn't make any sense... Or probably the question should be reworded (note that some of us have been already tempted to close it as "unclear what you're asking").

I'm not discussing the advantages of one license over another, just because I have no idea what it gives. You change the license and the reason of the change seems to be missing - if you'd like to receive more valuable feedback, probably it'd be better to list the FAQ you're mentioning.

Just looking at some points you make.

Attribution will be required when you use code found at Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

I don't get it. Isn't that the case already?

Either I've missed something, or... nothing changes there?

Next one.

We understand that some users feel the new terms are not a perfect fit for certain sites, but we think fragmenting the license across the network will lead to ambiguity – the exact problem we’re trying to solve by updating the terms.

I can be mistaken, but I don't recall different sites of Stack Exchange family to have their content licensed differently. As the footer stays, "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". Currently it says so on any SE site. Then the license doesn't appear to be fragmented? There's no problem then, let's keep the old good traditions... But wait, you're now changing the license and it appears to cause problems. Isn't that a sign that something is done not in the right way?

This change is just a first step in establishing clarity for using code found on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

As I've mentioned above, the footer says the attribution is required... linking to Jeff's blog post. Anything you mention doesn't appear to contradict with the point of Jeff and hence the rules which we're complying now. In fact, the blog post is being more descriptive regarding the contribution.

Also, we want to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to provide feedback and we have time to consider it. We are more concerned with doing this right than doing it fast, so please let us know what you think about this proposed change.

 

...

 

We want to hear what you think. Barring any showstopper, these terms and a detailed FAQ will be rolled out March 1, 2016.

Woops. Doesn't it look like you won't consider the feedback provided there? I mean, possible at first, and evident now, the "showstopper" is the feedback posted here and in the previous thread of yours. This means that asking for the feedback doesn't make any sense... Or probably the question should be reworded (note that some of us have been already tempted to close it as "unclear what you're asking").

I'm not discussing the advantages of one license over another, just because I have no idea what it gives. You change the license and the reason of the change seems to be missing - if you'd like to receive more valuable feedback, probably it'd be better to list the FAQ you're mentioning.

Just looking at some points you make.

Attribution will be required when you use code found at Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

I don't get it. Isn't that the case already?

Either I've missed something, or... nothing changes there?

Next one.

We understand that some users feel the new terms are not a perfect fit for certain sites, but we think fragmenting the license across the network will lead to ambiguity – the exact problem we’re trying to solve by updating the terms.

I can be mistaken, but I don't recall different sites of Stack Exchange family to have their content licensed differently. As the footer stays, "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". Currently it says so on any SE site. Then the license doesn't appear to be fragmented? There's no problem then, let's keep the old good traditions... But wait, you're now changing the license and it appears to cause problems. Isn't that a sign that something is done not in the right way?

This change is just a first step in establishing clarity for using code found on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

As I've mentioned above, the footer says the attribution is required... linking to Jeff's blog post. Anything you mention doesn't appear to contradict with the point of Jeff and hence the rules which we're complying now. In fact, the blog post is being more descriptive regarding the contribution.

Also, we want to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to provide feedback and we have time to consider it. We are more concerned with doing this right than doing it fast, so please let us know what you think about this proposed change.

...

We want to hear what you think. Barring any showstopper, these terms and a detailed FAQ will be rolled out March 1, 2016.

Woops. Doesn't it look like you won't consider the feedback provided there? I mean, possible at first, and evident now, the "showstopper" is the feedback posted here and in the previous thread of yours. This means that asking for the feedback doesn't make any sense... Or probably the question should be reworded (note that some of us have been already tempted to close it as "unclear what you're asking").

I'm not discussing the advantages of one license over another, just because I have no idea what it gives. You change the license and the reason of the change seems to be missing - if you'd like to receive more valuable feedback, probably it'd be better to list the FAQ you're mentioning.

Just looking at some points you make there.

Attribution will be required when you use code found at Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

I don't get it. Isn't that the case already?

Either I've missed something, or... nothing changes there?

Next one.

We understand that some users feel the new terms are not a perfect fit for certain sites, but we think fragmenting the license across the network will lead to ambiguity – the exact problem we’re trying to solve by updating the terms.

I can be mistaken, but I don't recall different sites of Stack Exchange family to have their content licensed differently. As the footer stays, "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". Currently it says so on any SE site. Then the license doesn't appear to be fragmented? There's no problem then, let's keep the old good traditions... But wait, you're now changing the license and it appears to cause problems. Isn't that a sign that something is done not in the right way?

This change is just a first step in establishing clarity for using code found on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

As I've mentioned above, the footer says the attribution is required... linking to Jeff's blog post. Anything you mention doesn't appear to contradict with the point of Jeff and hence the rules which we're complying now. In fact, the blog post is being more descriptive regarding the contribution.

Also, we want to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to provide feedback and we have time to consider it. We are more concerned with doing this right than doing it fast, so please let us know what you think about this proposed change.

...

We want to hear what you think. Barring any showstopper, these terms and a detailed FAQ will be rolled out March 1, 2016.

Woops. Doesn't it look like you won't consider the feedback provided there? I mean, possible at first, and evident now, the "showstopper" is the feedback posted here and in the previous thread of yours. This means that asking for the feedback doesn't make any sense... Or probably the question should be reworded (note that some of us have been already tempted to close it as "unclear what you're asking").

I'm not discussing the advantages of one license over another, just because I have no idea what it gives. You change the license and the reason of the change seems to be missing - if you'd like to receive more valuable feedback, probably it'd be better to list the FAQ you're mentioning.

Just looking at some points you make.

Attribution will be required when you use code found at Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

I don't get it. Isn't that the case already?

Either I've missed something, or... nothing changes there?

Next one.

We understand that some users feel the new terms are not a perfect fit for certain sites, but we think fragmenting the license across the network will lead to ambiguity – the exact problem we’re trying to solve by updating the terms.

I can be mistaken, but I don't recall different sites of Stack Exchange family to have their content licensed differently. As the footer stays, "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". Currently it says so on any SE site. Then the license doesn't appear to be fragmented? There's no problem then, let's keep the old good traditions... But wait, you're now changing the license and it appears to cause problems. Isn't that a sign that something is done not in the right way?

This change is just a first step in establishing clarity for using code found on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange

As I've mentioned above, the footer says the attribution is required... linking to Jeff's blog post. Anything you mention doesn't appear to contradict with the point of Jeff and hence the rules which we're complying now. In fact, the blog post is being more descriptive regarding the contribution.

Also, we want to make sure everyone has ample opportunity to provide feedback and we have time to consider it. We are more concerned with doing this right than doing it fast, so please let us know what you think about this proposed change.

...

We want to hear what you think. Barring any showstopper, these terms and a detailed FAQ will be rolled out March 1, 2016.

Woops. Doesn't it look like you won't consider the feedback provided there? I mean, possible at first, and evident now, the "showstopper" is the feedback posted here and in the previous thread of yours. This means that asking for the feedback doesn't make any sense... Or probably the question should be reworded (note that some of us have been already tempted to close it as "unclear what you're asking").

I'm not discussing the advantages of one license over another, just because I have no idea what it gives. You change the license and the reason of the change seems to be missing - if you'd like to receive more valuable feedback, probably it'd be better to list the FAQ you're mentioning.