4 ms·

I agree with your first paragraph, but I don't agree that google is violating CC BY-SA. They do provide a link back to the original source, very clearly shown i

by coldpie 12y ago

I agree with your first paragraph, but I don't agree that google is violating CC BY-SA. They do provide a link back to the original source, very clearly shown in the picture in the article. This seems sufficient for attribution, though perhaps they should go further and actually cite the answerer's username. You could argue that combining two answers counts as modification, but that seems more of a nit-pick than enforcing the spirit of the license. Otherwise the text is unchanged.

kaoD 12y ago
From the license: > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, _provide a link to the license_ [...] There is no link to the license. There isn't even a mention of the license! For me this is the most important point, therefore Google is not complying with the license. --- > You could argue that combining two answers counts as modification, but that seems more of a nit-pick than enforcing the spirit of the license. This is a minor point for me, but I still disagree. Google's work is definitely a remix and the license is very explicit about it. We're not the ones meant to interpret what's the spirit of the license or when it's fine to violate its terms. I guess (IANAL) even non-remixed excerpts (i.e. removing content) should be marked as excerpts to fully comply. Here's example of why it might not be just a nitpick: answers are sometimes conflicting, and their meaning might change radically when automated excerpts are amalgamated. Imagine a right answer turned wrong by the automated merge. This could damage SO's reputation, driving away visits which would otherwise come back to SO as a reliable source. If I were to remix them by hand, I would definitely mark it as a derived work.
- Navarr 12y ago
  If this was a concern than Search Engines would be worthless! They couldn't embed any snippets from any webpage ever, as all materials are by default copyright their author with no license for reproduction. I'm very sure there have been several legal cases involving search engines extracting information from the website. Spain's news organizations come to mind - the end result being that not licensing Google was bad for business.

by coldpie 12y ago

kaoD 12y ago

From the license: > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, _provide a link to the license_ [...] There is no link to the license. There isn't even a mention of the license! For me this is the most important point, therefore Google is not complying with the license. --- > You could argue that combining two answers counts as modification, but that seems more of a nit-pick than enforcing the spirit of the license. This is a minor point for me, but I still disagree. Google's work is definitely a remix and the license is very explicit about it. We're not the ones meant to interpret what's the spirit of the license or when it's fine to violate its terms. I guess (IANAL) even non-remixed excerpts (i.e. removing content) should be marked as excerpts to fully comply. Here's example of why it might not be just a nitpick: answers are sometimes conflicting, and their meaning might change radically when automated excerpts are amalgamated. Imagine a right answer turned wrong by the automated merge. This could damage SO's reputation, driving away visits which would otherwise come back to SO as a reliable source. If I were to remix them by hand, I would definitely mark it as a derived work.

Navarr 12y ago
If this was a concern than Search Engines would be worthless! They couldn't embed any snippets from any webpage ever, as all materials are by default copyright their author with no license for reproduction. I'm very sure there have been several legal cases involving search engines extracting information from the website. Spain's news organizations come to mind - the end result being that not licensing Google was bad for business.