17

The contributors license their work with a creative commons license and more specifically "cc by-sa". This means that the if anybody, e.g. SE, wants to use the work of a contributor then they need to provide the (original) license with the works (or at least one that is not restricting the previous, but that is another issue).

  • Full site footer:

    On the regular website this is done by making notice of this license with a link at the bottom of the page.

    full site footer

  • Mobile footer:

    However, it seems to me that the version of the website for mobile phones does not include this link at the bottom, and any notice of the license is difficult to find (if any such notice exists). mobile footer

This seems to be to save space on the small screens, but is it reasonable and correct?

  • 1
    Another reason to quickly abolish the mobile views. In the responsive site it is visible. – Luuklag Feb 6 at 8:53
11

Thanks for bringing this oversight to our attention. The license declaration is now included on the mobile site.

  • Very nice. One additional point of attention. It is still a bit short and it is not so clear what the license applies to. Currently it might seem like the entire mobile website is now cc by-sa and not just the works from contributors. – Sextus Empiricus Feb 6 at 19:26
  • Also (the old story), while you are making these edits you could mention that lots of works here are not cc by-sa 4.0 but 3.0 or lower instead. The current notice makes it appear as if the individual works are all licensed under 4.0 terms but they are not. This is a breach of the terms with the license that you got from your contributors. – Sextus Empiricus Feb 6 at 20:18
  • 1
    @SextusEmpiricus good point. how about "user contributions under cc-by-sa 4.0"? As to 3.0/4.0, we are trying to get that addressed. It's complicated. But not going to be able to solve the issue in the mobile footer at this time. – Yaakov Ellis Feb 6 at 21:05
  • Personally, I am happy enough with a commitment to solve the issue with the many works that have a different license version than 4.0 and are currently not correctly attributed with the single attribution in the bottom (although it is missing a time frame, but hearing about the commitment makes me really happy for the moment). This should be turned into a different post/request/bug but I leave it up to others to do it correctly. – Sextus Empiricus Feb 6 at 21:24
  • 1
    @SextusEmpiricus To be pedantic: it's actually 2.5/3.0/4.0. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Feb 7 at 17:00
  • 1
    @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog to be pedantic about the pedantic remark. I did not exclude the '2.5', and mentioned "or lower". But since I do not know the full history of this website and under which versions contributions have been licensed here before I did not make it explicit (that is not up to me). – Sextus Empiricus Feb 7 at 17:17
  • The text of the mobile license in the footer has been changed to "user contributions under cc by-sa 4.0" – Yaakov Ellis Feb 10 at 15:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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