Timeline for Our partnership with Google and commitment to socially responsible AI
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4 at 6:09 | comment | added | Meta Andrew T. | Just a heads-up, SE has unblocked GPTBot since 27 Mar 2024. | |
| Mar 28 at 11:31 | history | bounty ended | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні | ||
| Mar 20 at 23:02 | comment | added | BryKKan | @ThomasOwens That's simply not true, and I grow tired of your obdurate contradictions. I have laid it all out before, including linking directly to the license. There are multiple mentions of royalties in the text, so you obviously haven't read it. I'm not going to rehash it again with you here in the comment thread. | |
| Mar 19 at 17:52 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @BryKKan Please cite the section of the CC BY-SA license that has this "no royalties" provision. Then, explain how charging a fee for access is a royalty, since a royalty is defined as a fee per use. Hint: you can't, because it doesn't exist. | |
| Mar 19 at 17:48 | comment | added | BryKKan | @ThomasOwens I am not confused. I know what an NC license is. I never said SE couldn't charge for anything. They just can't charge for the original content. There is a no royalties provision that applies, as I've mentioned several times. You're welcome to post your own question, and I'd be happy to participate. But I'm not going to do it for you. You can also direct others to consider and reply to the answer I linked in a previous comment. I've examined it "every which way" and there's no way for SE to meet all of the terms without at least ONE published source that's fully "free". | |
| Mar 18 at 11:21 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @BryKKan The "without any restrictions" is wrong. There is nothing that prevents commercial restrictions, such as paywalls. I can't show you something that doesn't exist. If you don't believe me, perhaps ask a question on Open Source. The only thing that can't be added is restrictions that limit the use beyond what's allowed in the license terms. | |
| Mar 18 at 10:01 | comment | added | BryKKan | You just keep repeating. You seem to reject or simply be unable to comprehend the concept of a constructive violation (or corollary obligation). SE has to share the content they're still using – for free, without any restrictions because if they don't they will be in violation of the license. I have laid out in extraordinary detail exactly how this obligation arises, and you just keep saying "no" (because you don't see it explicitly in text). My argument is logically sound. If you have substantial concern as to any specific premise, voice it. But otherwise, please stop contradicting. | |
| Mar 17 at 22:13 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @BryKKan No, nothing needs to be freely available. There is no obligation to give the content to anyone or make it free in any way. That simply doesn't exist. Even if there's a derivative work out there, they would need to make the derivative work CC BY-SA or compatible and point to where they got the work. SE doesn't make derivative works - SE is a compilation. | |
| Mar 17 at 22:04 | comment | added | BryKKan | Who said anything about non-commercial?! They can do whatever they want with the data, and charge whatever the market will bear to extract any value they add. That isn't what we're talking about. The original licensed content is only required to be made available so long as any derivative work including it is still part of their portfolio. But as long as any active derived work contains it, they cannot satisfy the license terms (attribution/non-royalty/SA) without making the original content freely available. | |
| Mar 17 at 22:02 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @BryKKan Again, you are wrong. The license terms do not prohibit restricting who can access the content. Putting the content behind a paywall or restricting who can access it are entirely permitted. There are no NC license terms in the CC BY-SA license. | |
| Mar 17 at 21:59 | comment | added | BryKKan | That's somewhat true, except that it refers to laws which implement a particular treaty obligation, so it's actually much broader in scope than what we might normally consider "DRM". The fact that there is no explicit publishing requirement does not mean one can never be derived from the other license terms. Plain and simple: SE cannot use the content without meeting all the license terms. All of the proposed means to "gate/meter/monetize" access to the Q&A DB (i.e. website/API/Dumps) run into license contradictions unless at least one of these sources is unrestricted and royalty-free. | |
| Mar 17 at 21:29 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @BryKKan The "effective technological measures" refers to DRM. Just because SE has a copy of the content doesn't mean they have to give it to anyone. They can restrict who has access to it. However, anyone who receives it receives it under CC BY-SA and must comply with the terms of that license. Just because I write something and offer it to someone (SE, in this case) under the terms of the CC BY-SA license doesn't mean they are obligated to share, copy, redistribute the content. If they do, then attribution and share alike clauses are triggered. | |
| Mar 17 at 21:07 | comment | added | BryKKan | Put it this way: SE has the original content, so they CAN offer full attribution and the original text. There is no other source they can point to except their own database, either "directly", or indirectly through the public site. Therefore they must provide access to the full content/attribution in order to legally share it. Having set up any such system, they must give access to everyone, lest they be deemed to have instituted an illegal royalty or "technical measure" which diminishes downstream users' rights and hinders fair attribution. | |
| Mar 17 at 20:53 | comment | added | BryKKan | No, it isn't. It's not even a little wrong. You keep oversimplifying to "contributed content being removed at any point in time". However, by the very nature of SE, removing content is more complicated than what you suggest. If SE simply "deletes" content from everywhere in the company (i.e. "poor quality" Qs), that's perfectly allowable. BUT, if they intend to keep using that content in ANY form, they become entangled in other license provisions and it's now a problem. I don't know why you struggle to accept this, as it's a complication that's unique to SE, and not any content you republish | |
| Mar 17 at 20:11 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @BryKKan That is very wrong. Just because I give you a work licensed CC BY-SA doesn't mean you have to distribute it. It just means that if you do distribute it or create a derivative work, you have to share alike. There's nothing wrong with contributed content being removed at any point in time. But anyone that did receive it before it was removed can continue to share it under the terms. | |
| Mar 17 at 14:11 | comment | added | BryKKan | That's an overly simplified view, and ultimately just not accurate. They are the original and often sole publisher. Removing "bad" Q&A is one thing. But as long as some content is considered "useful", SE can't remove it from the public site without constructively violating attribution and "share-alike" provisions. The situation with the dumps is even more complicated. In that case you're partially right. They only have to upload the dumps to avoid other obligations. More here: meta.stackexchange.com/a/390156/395778 | |
| Mar 14 at 9:28 | comment | added | OrangeDog | @BryKKan no, they are completely free to only provide copies to whomever they choose. They could block half the world from half the content, and that wouldn't be in violation of any license. There is also no legal obligation whatsoever to produce those dumps, nor allow any automated access. The attribution is already available through the web interface to the people who are accessing the content. | |
| Mar 14 at 8:41 | comment | added | BryKKan | @FedericoPoloni that's a fair observation. But given the time between the dumps, it's hard to claim they FULLY replace the access they aim to block through robots.txt | |
| Mar 14 at 8:37 | comment | added | BryKKan | @OrangeDog yes, of course they can. But ONLY if they stop doing it entirely. As long as the site is up, and a Q&A is relevant to their use, they have an obligation to keep it up on the public site and/or dumps for the sake of attribution. Probably both, due to practical/techical limitations of both formats. | |
| Mar 6 at 21:27 | comment | added | mchid | @KarlKnechtel Yeah, I just feel like personally, I radically support free and open access but when people abuse that and don't credit the source, particularly for profit, they can get rekt. | |
| Mar 6 at 20:42 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @ThomasOwens True, but since they publish a data dump EvilCorp can just use that and not be bound by robots.txt. | |
| Mar 5 at 20:54 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | @mchid That part is not my area of expertise; presumably that's the point where lawyers could get involved. But I assume that the Creative Commons NPO has something to say about it. | |
| Mar 5 at 20:38 | comment | added | mchid | @KarlKnechtel Okay but what about preventing access to people who violate the Creative Commons license, and don't provide proper credit to the original source (the users who created that content)? I'm not saying that anyone should prevent access but when one person violates a contract, the other end of the contract is no longer enforceable. | |
| Mar 3 at 0:33 | history | edited | Thomas Owens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 246 characters in body
|
| Mar 1 at 20:02 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | My point is: if you care about others having free and equal access to your content, repost it somewhere that you control. | |
| Mar 1 at 18:57 | comment | added | OrangeDog | @KarlKnechtel CC-BY-SA 4.0 places no requirements on access whatsoever. SE is perfectly free to stop sharing our content entirely. | |
| Feb 29 at 20:32 | history | edited | Thomas Owens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 386 characters in body
|
| Feb 29 at 16:29 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @KarlKnechtel That's not exactly true. To receive the CC license, you need to receive the work. Unless you post it elsewhere, SE can control who can read the platform and therefore receive the work under a CC license. So yes, they do have the right to control who can access user content via the platform. And I would expect that they block known bad actors from accessing the platform, especially if those bad actors degrade the experience for others. | |
| Feb 29 at 16:28 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @KevinB That is true. However, making decisions that affect millions of contributors and their work behind closed doors with no consultation also isn't socially responsible. | |
| Feb 29 at 16:17 | comment | added | Kevin B | Having a "right" to do something doesn't make doing it socially responsible. | |
| Feb 29 at 16:15 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | "SE does have every right to control who can access their platform and how they can access it." - SE does not, however, have a right to control who can access users' content. Creative Commons licenses are open to everyone. and also none of this licensing creates or implies any transfer of copyright. | |
| Feb 29 at 16:08 | history | edited | terdon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Feb 29 at 14:33 | history | answered | Thomas Owens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |