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

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.