5 ms·

Although one key difference is that EE kept the IP for all the user generated content, but all SO content is licensed under Creative Commons. http://stackoverf

Although one key difference is that EE kept the IP for all the user generated content, but all SO content is licensed under Creative Commons. http://stackoverflow.com/faq#editing http://stackoverflow.com/faq#editing

gizzlon 15y ago
Exactly.. Of course it won't be super-easy to replace SO but at least the information is available. They even post data dumps.. cool =) If they are cynical, they might change license for new content after the community has gained enough traction. I'm not convinced people would stop using SO if they did. http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
- Piskvorrr 15y ago
  Important point: new content. It is not possible to retroactively change the CC license used to a more restrictive one ("I know you fully legally downloaded the last data dump, but could you delete your copy? Pretty please?"). So, license change -> major drop in participation as many will go elsewhere bringing with them SO's content up to that point -> might as well close the thing down, killing the golden goose and whatnot. (btw, 1.there are worries that the community has already gained too much traction and the site's decline is imminent, as it'll surely be swamped with high-noise Q&A; and 2. speaking for myself, I'd surely quit if a restrictive license were put in place, there are many such users)
bad_user 15y ago
I think Stack Overflow will be better in the long run. For instance I don't mind ads that are relevant to me, like book recommendations. I also wouldn't mind complementary services related to Stack Overflow. There are more options available right now than in the early 2000 that could earn them revenue without upsetting the community.
- tucson 15y ago
  yes, but how can the need for ROI (on the $millions invested) not hurt the current user experience?
  - AndrewHampton 15y ago
    I think the investment was a bet that the Stack Overflow model could be replicated in many verticals. If they're able to achieve being the de facto QA site for other professions like they are for programming, I think there are several revenue models that would be possible.
  - cruise02 15y ago
    I think you're asking the wrong question. Show me how the need for ROI has hurt the current user experience.
    - tucson 15y ago
      Because the user experience has not yet suffered does not guarantee it won't. I am not saying that the user experience will be ruined, only that it is technically possible. We just have to imagine SO is sold and the new owners put more ads, for example. Do you know if the current investors are happy about the current ROI?
      - mistermann 15y ago
        It is technically possible for the earth to be hit by a comet tomorrow, wiping out all life. Just because this hasn't happened in our lifetimes does not guarantee it won't. Instead of posting comments on the internet, you should be spending time with your loved ones.
      - cruise02 15y ago
        Why speculate on what might happen? I can always bail out and stop contributing if something changes and Stack Overflow stops being a valuable resource for me as a developer.
    - 15y ago
davweb 15y ago
This is the key difference. Stack Overflow has said all along that it would always be free and the CC license helps ensure this. If Stack Overflow decides to put up a paywall anyone could simply put up the all existing content, perhaps using one of the existing open source SO clones [1]. Also, a lot of the current Google traffic would instead go to one of the sites which currently legitimately repost all of SO's content [2]. [1] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-clones http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-... [2] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24611/is-it-legal-to-copy-stack-overflow-questions-and-answers http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24611/is-it-legal-to...
- simonbrown 15y ago
  Of course, it would have to link back to StackOverflow with a non-nofollowed link.

gizzlon 15y ago

Exactly.. Of course it won't be super-easy to replace SO but at least the information is available. They even post data dumps.. cool =) If they are cynical, they might change license for new content after the community has gained enough traction. I'm not convinced people would stop using SO if they did. http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/

Piskvorrr 15y ago
Important point: new content. It is not possible to retroactively change the CC license used to a more restrictive one ("I know you fully legally downloaded the last data dump, but could you delete your copy? Pretty please?"). So, license change -> major drop in participation as many will go elsewhere bringing with them SO's content up to that point -> might as well close the thing down, killing the golden goose and whatnot. (btw, 1.there are worries that the community has already gained too much traction and the site's decline is imminent, as it'll surely be swamped with high-noise Q&A; and 2. speaking for myself, I'd surely quit if a restrictive license were put in place, there are many such users)

bad_user 15y ago

I think Stack Overflow will be better in the long run. For instance I don't mind ads that are relevant to me, like book recommendations. I also wouldn't mind complementary services related to Stack Overflow. There are more options available right now than in the early 2000 that could earn them revenue without upsetting the community.

tucson 15y ago
yes, but how can the need for ROI (on the $millions invested) not hurt the current user experience?
- AndrewHampton 15y ago
  I think the investment was a bet that the Stack Overflow model could be replicated in many verticals. If they're able to achieve being the de facto QA site for other professions like they are for programming, I think there are several revenue models that would be possible.
- cruise02 15y ago
  I think you're asking the wrong question. Show me how the need for ROI has hurt the current user experience.
  - tucson 15y ago
    Because the user experience has not yet suffered does not guarantee it won't. I am not saying that the user experience will be ruined, only that it is technically possible. We just have to imagine SO is sold and the new owners put more ads, for example. Do you know if the current investors are happy about the current ROI?
    - mistermann 15y ago
      It is technically possible for the earth to be hit by a comet tomorrow, wiping out all life. Just because this hasn't happened in our lifetimes does not guarantee it won't. Instead of posting comments on the internet, you should be spending time with your loved ones.
    - cruise02 15y ago
      Why speculate on what might happen? I can always bail out and stop contributing if something changes and Stack Overflow stops being a valuable resource for me as a developer.
  - 15y ago

davweb 15y ago

This is the key difference. Stack Overflow has said all along that it would always be free and the CC license helps ensure this. If Stack Overflow decides to put up a paywall anyone could simply put up the all existing content, perhaps using one of the existing open source SO clones [1]. Also, a lot of the current Google traffic would instead go to one of the sites which currently legitimately repost all of SO's content [2]. [1] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-clones http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-... [2] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24611/is-it-legal-to-copy-stack-overflow-questions-and-answers http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24611/is-it-legal-to...

simonbrown 15y ago
Of course, it would have to link back to StackOverflow with a non-nofollowed link.