In which context would the difference in licensing rules between CC SA 3.0 and CC SA 4.0 actually matter?

Question

Currently there's a big controversy over SE changing the licensing from CC 3.0 to CC 4.0. Regardless of whether this change was legally solid or not, could someone provide a specific example of how this licensing ambiguity affects our ability to copy, share and reuse content published on SE in the past?

Let's say I find an interesting piece of code on Stack Overflow from 2017 and add it to my open source project with attribution, citing CC BY SA. Could the author of this piece of code claim a copyright violation somehow, given the licensing ambiguity? The way I see it - the code is licensed under either 3.0 or 4.0 and the difference between the licenses is so small in practice that knowing the exact version shouldn't matter. Whoever wrote the code couldn't suddenly claim that the licensing change completely revoked their original CC attribution, making it impossible for others to reuse their content.

Note that I'm not interested in whether or not the licensing change was legal/moral/appropriate/cool. I'm merely asking about how it affects my rights to reuse content posted on SE.

Relevant posts on other sites:

1. How do you write an attribution if there's ambiguity over which version of Creative Commons applies?
2. In which context would the difference in licensing rules between CC BY-SA 3.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0 actually matter?
3. Is there an official guideline from Creative Commons on how a CC-BY-SA 3.0 website could "upgrade" to CC-BY-SA 4.0?

Answer 1

The aspect in which the uncertainty about the license change affects me most in terms of practical considerations is that the usage of the content outside of Stack Overflow is suddenly subject to complicated considerations.

If I don't know if the content is really CC-BY-SA-3.0 or 4.0, I cannot mix with other CC-BY-SA-3.0 content (because the content could be 4.0) and still claim it's 3.0 (because CC-BY-SA is not backwards compatible). I don't even know what license I should write below this content. ("Hey, this is some content that is either under CC-BY-SA-3.0 or 4.0."). Before I was in safe legal territory, now suddenly I'm not even sure what the license is at all. And people who then want to use my mixed content then will even be more unsure about the license. That's really bad and will surely impede innovation.

For me this is a huge practical hindrance. For Stack Overflow Inc. it may not matter that much because they can use the content for their purpose anyway (independent of 3.0 or 4.0) but for all other thinkable uses of the content it is essential to determine the license beyond doubt (because CC-BY-SA-3.0 is not 4.0). Apart from the differences in the license itself, the most practical problem is indeed the uncertainty about it. And the company has done zero to help bringing certainty. I know it because I have asked them for clarification multiple times and never got any answer. That's why I'm a bit unsatisfied with them.

Answer 2

There are two other changes that are relevant:

• If you violate the terms of the license, with version 3.0 your rights to use the content are immediately revoked, whereas with 4.0, you're given a 30-day grace period to correct any violation.

• While you can use 3.0 content in a 4.0 work, you generally can't use 4.0 content in an exclusively 3.0 work. For example, code snippets published after the license change on Stack Overflow can't be posted to Wikipedia, an exclusively 3.0 work. (As far as I can best tell.)

Answer 3

The difference wouldn't matter much. What matters is that the whole content on Stack Exchange has no valid license and you are not allowed to use it at all (except content completely created after the illegal license change).

There is at least one user here who thankfully tries to get clarity about the license change by suing Stack Exchange if needed. I will donate to their GoFundMe and if you want to know if you are allowed to use any Stack Exchange content at all without breaking the law you should too!

Answer 4

In your specific scenario of incorporating code into your project, the difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is irrelevant. Section 4b of the 3.0 license has the following clause:

You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License...

By incorporating the code into your project, you are unambiguously creating an "adaptation" as defined in section 1 of the license, and are free to use the code under either CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0 (or any later version of CC-BY-SA).*

The Creative Commons website has a page on the differences between license versions. In general, as a re-user:

• You could assert database rights over the content under 3.0, but can't under 4.0.
• 4.0 explicitly grants permission to crack any DRM applied to the content; under 3.0, this was ambiguous.
• If you're violating the terms of the license, you've got a 30-day grace period to fix the violation; under 3.0, the license is terminated immediately.
• Under 3.0, the author can assert moral rights to a greater extent than under 4.0.
• 4.0 grants slightly more flexibility in how you comply with the attribution and license-notification provisions, but also changes what elements must be included for proper attribution.

For most re-users, it's the attribution changes that are most likely to cause problems. It's possible to simultaneously be in compliance with 3.0 and 4.0, but it requires being careful about what you're doing.

*_{Note: you'd need to license the entire project under the license if you do this, and Creative Commons does not recommend using CC licenses other than CC-0 for software.}

Answer 5

There are several differences between the licenses.

A comprehensive overview is given on the wiki of the creativecommons webpage

There are many differences. A nice feature is that the license is international. However the 4.0 version has some restrictions with regard to licensors (the contributors, content owners).

Some remarkable points of restrictions in V4 that does not exist in V3 are:

• In version V4 the contributors are agreeing to restrictions on moral rights (as far that is possible)

  Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

• In V4 there are more rights for the licensee with regards reviving the license after the termination. Note StackExchange is currently not following the terms of the V3 license (for instance this and this ), which should terminate the rights that they get from the license (article 7).

  Under V4 they have 30 days to correct it, under V3 this is not the case

  ...

  Section 6 – Term and Termination.

  a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically.

  b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates:

  1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation;

  2. or upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.

     ..

Answer 6

(IANAL) A big technical difference that has not yet been mentioned is that CC BY-SA 4.0 code can be used in a GPL3 program, while CC BY-SA 3.0 code cannot. However, this compatibility does not allow the CC BY-SA 4.0 content to be adapted under "GPL3 or any later version". See here

In practice, this change is not significant to projects using GPL3+. For GPL3 only codebases, the change would allow direct copying of code.