5 ms·

The SO content is licensed under cc by-sa 4.0, so theoretically someone could take it all and start again. Might work with enough of the resigning moderators be

The SO content is licensed under cc by-sa 4.0, so theoretically someone could take it all and start again. Might work with enough of the resigning moderators behind it. But I don't think anyone could get enough of them behind it.

CogitoCogito 7y ago
What I wonder is if the recent LinkedIn ruling implies that SO can’t prevent others from scraping the site. And given that the content is already liberally licenses maybe scrape plus rehost is all that’s needed. Of course there are a lot of technical details that could sink this but I can’t see legal issues hindering it.
- u02sgb 7y ago
  SO used to offer their database of q&a for download. Has that changed?
  - juki 7y ago
    The data dumps seem to still be available: https://archive.org/details/stackexchange https://archive.org/details/stackexchange
    - CogitoCogito 7y ago
      Oh I had no idea. Definitely gained some respect for SO. I guess in this case, the information is at least available in case SO really jumps the shark.
  - reilly3000 7y ago
    Its also available via BigQuery public datasets: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-bigquery-public-datasets-now-include-stack-overflow-q-a https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-bigquery-p...
jacobush 7y ago
No, it's not. They said the "re-licensed" it to that. If they can do that, I will now re-licence my copy of Windows 10 to cc by-sa 4.0.
- jayshua 7y ago
  Eh, I don't know. Posting content under the terms that it will be licensed under cc-whatever seems pretty different from trying to relicense software you have paid a company to use.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Sorry? I give something under one license, you redistribute it under a completely different license, without my permission. Why is it so important whether money transactions were involved?
    - jayshua 7y ago
      The money isn't the important part. I should have just left that part out. The important part is where SO says "by posting content you agree to license it to us, and we agree to relicense it as cc-by-sa." I didn't understand what you were getting at with the comparison, they seemed totally unrelated to me. I think I see now though. If I look at it a certain way I see "receiving content and then relicensing it" in both circumstances. I think that the context which needs to be ignored to make them the same in that way is very relevant though - the devil's in the details. In one circumstance you are posting content under the agreement mentioned above, in the other you are receiving content from someone who has agreed to no such conditions. Seems like the disconnect here is whether SO should be able to put the relicensing terms in their terms of use and have that be enough. Personally I lean toward yes, but could probably be persuaded in the other direction. Would a check box next to the answer box be enough consent do you think? Or do you feel no one has a right to relicense any content they haven't produced themselves?
      - jacobush 7y ago

CogitoCogito 7y ago

What I wonder is if the recent LinkedIn ruling implies that SO can’t prevent others from scraping the site. And given that the content is already liberally licenses maybe scrape plus rehost is all that’s needed. Of course there are a lot of technical details that could sink this but I can’t see legal issues hindering it.

u02sgb 7y ago
SO used to offer their database of q&a for download. Has that changed?
- juki 7y ago
  The data dumps seem to still be available: https://archive.org/details/stackexchange https://archive.org/details/stackexchange
  - CogitoCogito 7y ago
    Oh I had no idea. Definitely gained some respect for SO. I guess in this case, the information is at least available in case SO really jumps the shark.
- reilly3000 7y ago
  Its also available via BigQuery public datasets: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-bigquery-public-datasets-now-include-stack-overflow-q-a https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-bigquery-p...

jacobush 7y ago

No, it's not. They said the "re-licensed" it to that. If they can do that, I will now re-licence my copy of Windows 10 to cc by-sa 4.0.

jayshua 7y ago
Eh, I don't know. Posting content under the terms that it will be licensed under cc-whatever seems pretty different from trying to relicense software you have paid a company to use.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Sorry? I give something under one license, you redistribute it under a completely different license, without my permission. Why is it so important whether money transactions were involved?
  - jayshua 7y ago
    The money isn't the important part. I should have just left that part out. The important part is where SO says "by posting content you agree to license it to us, and we agree to relicense it as cc-by-sa." I didn't understand what you were getting at with the comparison, they seemed totally unrelated to me. I think I see now though. If I look at it a certain way I see "receiving content and then relicensing it" in both circumstances. I think that the context which needs to be ignored to make them the same in that way is very relevant though - the devil's in the details. In one circumstance you are posting content under the agreement mentioned above, in the other you are receiving content from someone who has agreed to no such conditions. Seems like the disconnect here is whether SO should be able to put the relicensing terms in their terms of use and have that be enough. Personally I lean toward yes, but could probably be persuaded in the other direction. Would a check box next to the answer box be enough consent do you think? Or do you feel no one has a right to relicense any content they haven't produced themselves?
    - jacobush 7y ago