Skip to main content
945 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

I like CC BY-SA 4.0. IMO, it's better than 3.0. I'd prefer to use it. I've chosen to use 4.0, instead of 3.0, on projects of my own. However, my preference doesn't affect the current situation with ...
Makyen's user avatar
  • 24.5k
377 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

I have some serious concerns with this, especially after the last round of licensing fiascos around the MIT license. I want to be clear: I like the Creative Commons licenses for text. I think that CC-...
Thomas Owens's user avatar
  • 51.4k
204 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

As animuson wanted this phrased as a question: Are you sure you're legally allowed to relicense all content without asking the copyright holders (i.e. all contributors) individually for permission? ...
OrangeDog's user avatar
  • 4,408
147 votes
Accepted

Will concerns regarding the move to CC BY-SA 4.0 elicit any further dialogue from Stack Exchange, Inc.?

One week later... Okay, well, I guess we have our answer. To say that I am disappointed in this company's behaviour would be a gross understatement. I tried to politely offer the option of direct ...
Lightness Races in Orbit's user avatar
144 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

Another subtle way in which the move to 4.0 is problematic is the following: CC-BY-SA 4.0 requires that any change made to the source material must be explicitly marked. And two changes that SE makes ...
Federico Poloni's user avatar
141 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

Right after this announcement here from Tim Post made on Sep 5th, I wrote to the legal department of the Network (legal at stackoverflow dot com) on Sep 7th in the hope of getting a clarification. I ...
NoDataDumpNoContribution's user avatar
103 votes
Accepted

Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?

As @VLAZ said, the primary concern was (and remains) the apparent illegality of the relicensing process. The license itself wasn't the problem. This was then exacerbated by SE's lack of response to ...
AmaiKotori's user avatar
  • 1,083
97 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that Stack Exchange is running a serious risk of losing their rights to ALL content because of their failure to address this issue. As is clearly stated in the ...
cegfault's user avatar
  • 2,847
69 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

While we are here .... This is related enough to be mentioned here. When images are copied to Imgur they are not only notionally assigned CC-by-whatever-the-current-flavour-is rights BUT also are ...
Russell McMahon's user avatar
66 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

I think it would be better to provide a choice (like YouTube, DeviantArt and some other websites do): CC BY-SA 4.0 as default value for new content, and 3.0 for old content. And of course MIT :)
andreymal's user avatar
  • 1,360
65 votes

Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?

For me, when SE said they were changing the license on content I'd already provided, they showed me they weren't going to do what they promised. Put simply, the license change on my content shows me I ...
De Novo's user avatar
  • 5,335
65 votes

Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?

As others have said, the problem isn't the new license by itself. These are the reasons we are complaining: Abrupt decision: in the past, changes were announced before their release, so that it was ...
Fabio says Reinstate Monica's user avatar
50 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

I wonder if this means that compatibility of the content with Wikipedia content is broken now. I think Wikipedia still uses CC-BY-SA-3.0 and typically these licenses are not backward compatible. ...
NoDataDumpNoContribution's user avatar
45 votes

Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?

So why is the proposal still unpopular this time? Because it's not a proposal. It was done, with immediate effect, with zero consultation and zero meaningful interaction afterwards. That is NOT ...
Lightness Races in Orbit's user avatar
42 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

Can you please at this time also remove the trademark violating demand that attribution be given in specific bespoke ways from the footer link and help centre, as I believe was your plan when the new ...
curiousdannii's user avatar
38 votes

Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?

Licensing is complicated enough, it's a necessary evil to understand enough of it to get around, but in the end I suspect most people really don't want to deal with the topic any more than necessary. ...
Mad Scientist's user avatar
37 votes

Will concerns regarding the move to CC BY-SA 4.0 elicit any further dialogue from Stack Exchange, Inc.?

Yes, it will. As Teresa wrote in her meta post: We have drafted our followup and clarification on the Content Licensing issue and will be publishing that within the next two weeks. Our response ...
Yaakov Ellis's user avatar
  • 63.4k
29 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

bug area51 I see that the link at the bottom of Area 51 now goes to version 4.0 of the license, instead of version 2.5 as it did previously. However, the footer continues to specify the name of the ...
Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog's user avatar
25 votes
Accepted

Is it OK to license content under "the latest version of CC BY-SA at the time being"?

We are definitely interested in introducing changes to the ToS that will achieve what you are looking for here. Need to change it in the right way, with the right language. Not something that we want ...
Yaakov Ellis's user avatar
  • 63.4k
24 votes
Accepted

Does archival interfere with attribution removal?

CC BY-SA has some language that limits the extent of the removal "to the extent practical": Licensors may request removal of attribution In the 4.0 licenses, a user must remove attribution ...
Alexander O'Mara's user avatar
24 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

The Help Centre links to the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and also needs updating.
curiousdannii's user avatar
23 votes

How do I get my content on Stack Exchange licensed correctly or else removed?

Send a notice to SE that the content is not being published correctly (I have made this community wiki because I do not know how to do this correctly and people need to improve this answer) From ...
22 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

The Terms of service back in Nov 5 2017 were (bold emphasis mine) You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange ...
Anonymous Coward's user avatar
22 votes

Does a third party deleting an account that still has posts violate CC BY-SA 4.0?

This looks like a straightforward violation to me. It looks like the easiest fix is to not lose the user's name in this case. Ensuring that all content is deleted first sounds like it would be a ...
Stop Harming the Community's user avatar
21 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0 Wait… what? Funny how one has to learn about this stuff months after it happened, just because one accidentally stumbles upon some link in ...
e-sushi's user avatar
  • 2,405
20 votes
Accepted

Is my copyrighted artwork protected if I upload it to a post?

Images you upload to the SE imgur instance using the integrated image upload feature are licensed under a Creative Commons license, specifically cc by-sa 3.0. This is explicitly mentioned in the ...
Mad Scientist's user avatar
19 votes

Could we have a Help Center page on disassociating posts?

I've received some feedback (in comments and in chat) that we should talk about some other steps the user can take and also clarify that this only matters for posts that shouldn't just be deleted. So ...
Monica Cellio's user avatar
18 votes

Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0

For what it's worth, here's how we deal with this in the Fedora Project. We have a contributor agreement ­which provides for a default license for any contributions which do not already have one. For ...
mattdm's user avatar
  • 4,507
18 votes

Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?

The biggest problem I have with the change is the communication around it. This is a direct change in the legal relationship between the users and the site: communicating the change should be the top ...
Peter Taylor's user avatar
  • 5,146

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible