All user content published is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 per [1] and backups/dumps of all this CC BY-SA 4.0 content are published every few months to the Inter

All user content published is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 per [1] and backups/dumps of all this CC BY-SA 4.0 content are published every few months to the Internet Archive [2]. CC BY-SA means you could use that latest dump to create your own "SQL Q&A" site and charge users for the privilege of looking at Gordon's 76,000 answers to SQL related questions. You would need to attribute Gordon Linoff for the answers provided, amongst other obligations of CC BY-SA 4.0 including an inability to re-license the content. Many would instinctively want to use a CC BY-NC license because of an unfounded fear of volunteering time to find out later that someone else is collecting a reward. There are many good reasons for avoiding CC NC (and even CC BY) licenses and choosing the least restrictive license possible. There is a good write up on Wikimedia's decision to prohibit CC NC licenses at [3] that explains some of the reasons. The majority of sites relying on volunteer contributions including Hacker News, Experts Exchange, Quora, Reddit, social media sites, Flickr (mostly), etc do not enforce copyleft licensing and contributions made to these sites could easily be lost forever. Wikipedia and StackOverflow including their volunteers likely wouldn't have enjoyed the same level of success if they used or allowed CC NC (or more restrictive) licensing. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public#licensing https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public#lice... [2] https://archive.org/details/stackexchange https://archive.org/details/stackexchange [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_Creative_Commons_licenses/en https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_Crea...