3 ms·
>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. That may be, but they
by jacobush 7y ago
>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.
That may be, but they didn't put such terms in their terms of use. They just retroactively changed the license. Or rather, they fraudulently misrepresent the license of the content. It would be like Github relicensing all content they serve under cc-by-sa. It's absurd.
>Or do you feel no one has a right to relicense any content they haven't produced themselves?
You can agree to all sorts of terms. I didn't. A huge number of contributors didn't. SO would have to go back to all contributors and renegotiate terms with them individually. Of course, no such attempt has been made.
- jayshua 7y agoI assumed we were talking about them "relicensing" the content from the all-rights-reserved-whatever to cc-by-sa. In hindsight that was poor wording on my part because it wouldn't actually be "relicensing" since the contributor is contributing it under cc-by-sa to begin with. So no relicensing is necessary. In my first comment I said cc-by-sa 4.0 because I had just gone to the site footer to see what license they were using. I knew it was some form of creative commons, but I didn't know which one. I didn't know until just now that they are changing (or trying to change) the license on all existing content from cc-by-sa 3.0 to cc-by-sa 4.0. That I doubt they can do and I very much disagree with the move even if they can. Interestingly, they also appear to have unilaterally changed the license on all content from cc-by-sa 2.5 to cc-by-sa 3.0 in 2011. The comment on Jeff Atwood's answer at https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/95033 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/95033 is fun.
- jacobush 7y agoAKA they lied also in 2011