4 ms·

I saw someone complaining about this the other day. Not sure if your intentions are the same... StackOverflow is CC-SA 2.5 licensed. The "derivative" site is

by sjs382 18y ago

I saw someone complaining about this the other day. Not sure if your intentions are the same... StackOverflow is CC-SA 2.5 licensed. The "derivative" site is also CC-SA 2.5 licensed. They both have clearly different audiences. I don't see a problem.

sjs382 18y ago
I should also note that I didn't notice any attribution on the site, as required by CC-SA 2.5. I don't speak the language though, so I can't be sure.
- catz 18y ago
  In the right bottom corner there is a CC-wiki logo with link to creativecommons.org
  - sjs382 18y ago
    Which fulfills the "Share Alike" portion, but not the "Attribution" portion...
    - jhancock 18y ago
      http://code.google.com/p/cnprog/ http://code.google.com/p/cnprog/ shows attribution. Maybe the boys at StackOverflow will need to talk to the writer of this new project to firm up details on how and where he shows such attributions.
      - sjs382 18y ago
        You think that's adequate? Personally I don't, but it's not an issue I care enough to argue. It was just an observation.
        jhancock 18y ago
        What I have seen so far: * 4 prominent attributions: SO attributions on his blog, the google code main page, CC license on the new production site, and in the code itself!!! * apache open source license Maybe he is not in full compliance yet, but this is one hell of a good start and demonstrates good faith.
        sjs382 18y ago
        I agree that the project is done in good faith and is a completely worthwhile project. See my original comment that started this thread. I think the proper way of attribution would be a link (or message) in the footer or, at the very least, on the about page. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but if I need to search for the attribution by going to the developers blog or viewing the source code, I don't think that's enough. This is beside the point, because I agree that the other forms /are/ attribution, but I don't consider the creative commons link a form of attribution at all.

by sjs382 18y ago

sjs382 18y ago

I should also note that I didn't notice any attribution on the site, as required by CC-SA 2.5. I don't speak the language though, so I can't be sure.

catz 18y ago
In the right bottom corner there is a CC-wiki logo with link to creativecommons.org
- sjs382 18y ago
  Which fulfills the "Share Alike" portion, but not the "Attribution" portion...
  - jhancock 18y ago
    http://code.google.com/p/cnprog/ http://code.google.com/p/cnprog/ shows attribution. Maybe the boys at StackOverflow will need to talk to the writer of this new project to firm up details on how and where he shows such attributions.
    - sjs382 18y ago
      You think that's adequate? Personally I don't, but it's not an issue I care enough to argue. It was just an observation.
      - jhancock 18y ago
        What I have seen so far: * 4 prominent attributions: SO attributions on his blog, the google code main page, CC license on the new production site, and in the code itself!!! * apache open source license Maybe he is not in full compliance yet, but this is one hell of a good start and demonstrates good faith.
        sjs382 18y ago
        I agree that the project is done in good faith and is a completely worthwhile project. See my original comment that started this thread. I think the proper way of attribution would be a link (or message) in the footer or, at the very least, on the about page. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but if I need to search for the attribution by going to the developers blog or viewing the source code, I don't think that's enough. This is beside the point, because I agree that the other forms /are/ attribution, but I don't consider the creative commons link a form of attribution at all.