Looking at the data dump for the recently closed Freelancers Stack Exchange beta, I note the license.txt file reads:

So let me clarify what we mean by attribution. If you republish this content, we require that you:

  1. Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow, Stack Overflow Meta, Server Fault, or Super User in some way. It doesn#t have to be obnoxious; a discreet text blurb is fine.


Since this is in the clarification part of the attribution requirement, rather than the license requirement itself (i.e., the assertion of CC-WIKI), the omission of any reference to the Stack Exchange 2.0 sites is a minor point, but it might suggest to pernickety readers that the wrong license text has been bundled.


Yes, the text file existed before Stack Exchange 2.0 existed, and was not updated to reflect.

The two most recent data dumps have a corrected file that references the whole network and not just the trilogy + MSO.

| improve this answer | |

I've put some static pages up with the content of the failed Freelancers Meta, with a discussion of the license page at:


If there's anything that falls short of what I should do, please tell me. Otherwise, I suggest that what I did is a reasonable interpretation of the license, given problems applying the rule to link to users' pages on Stack Overflow, etc.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .