Timeline for Are we allowed according to the ToS to exempt a part of our post from the CC license?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 31, 2022 at 9:36 | history | suggested | stickynotememo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed spelling and grammar. ("Dat date
|
| Jul 31, 2022 at 9:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 31, 2022 at 9:36 | |||||
| Apr 28, 2020 at 8:00 | history | edited | Tschallacka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Updated with the new license policy
|
| Apr 28, 2020 at 7:22 | comment | added | curiousdannii | "Fair use" may be a term specific to the US, but note that the Right to Quote is part of the Berne Convention on Copyright. Though whether that applies to images as well as text is murky. | |
| Mar 2, 2020 at 13:34 | comment | added | Tschallacka | @allo You cannot, an may not upload code that is not compatible with CC-BY-SA as sharing or dual licensed if you are not authorized to do so. So unless you are the author of said code, you are not in the power to re license the code under an incompatible license. No matter what you say in the post. You agreed to the terms of service where you agree to share under CC-BY-SA. You are the one on the hook for violation of the license provided to you. The only way to include it is to use it as a citation, and that can get murky as well | |
| Mar 2, 2020 at 13:17 | comment | added | allo | I would think clearly stating in the post that the code cannot be licensed as CC should be enough to not license it as CC as the intent is clearly stated. But SO may choose to remove it completely, when they do not want non-CC code on their site. Just think of someone posting a snippet of GPL code from a project he is part of. He cannot sublicense it, so SO cannot even get a CC licensed version of it. The only thing SO can do is to remove the code or the whole post (to remove the code in the edit history of the post as well). | |
| May 2, 2019 at 8:30 | comment | added | Tschallacka | @Magisch Yea, but until those law texts are set in stone I only have the directive to guide, and that's awfully broad, and to comply with minimum effort you could do a hash match, and then take it to European court to knock down the heuristics requirement if you have breath and finances that long when the country laws are provided. The European courts have been good at knocking down ridiculous requirement or overly broad laws. And the directive doesn't require to pre-emt, only after the fact that it was uploaded and reported forbids re-uploading. pre-empt would be a national thing only. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 8:22 | comment | added | Magisch | It only needs to be an exact match of that exact content, but it's waiting on the national implements of the law how strict it will roll out remains to be seen, as far as I know some countries in the EU plan to implement the copyright directive as requiring "state of the art" heuristic upload filters to pre-empt content that could be copyrighted from being uploaded, e.g. like a more aggressive version of youtube's content-id system. | |
| May 1, 2019 at 8:05 | history | edited | Tschallacka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 429 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2019 at 7:51 | history | edited | Tschallacka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 115 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2019 at 7:40 | history | edited | Tschallacka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 510 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2019 at 7:30 | history | edited | Tschallacka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 510 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2019 at 7:17 | history | answered | Tschallacka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |