4 ms·

> CC BY-SA is not the license that Google is using. Exactly, so their license is not compatible with SO's (which requires Share-Alike) and therefore they're vi

by kaoD 12y ago

> CC BY-SA is not the license that Google is using. Exactly, so their license is not compatible with SO's (which requires Share-Alike) and therefore they're violating SO's license until they explicitly comply with CC BY-SA in those excerpts. What matters here is which license the source content is distributed under. > Stack Overflow added metadata to their HTML to enable Google to use the answers in their response box. This is the primary (and probably sole) reason for this metadata SO added metadata to enable anyone to use their data in any way (as long as they comply with the license). I'm very grateful for having structured data. Even if schema.org is a Google (+ Microsoft + Yahoo + Yandex) initiative, the idea is to structure the content, not to give it for free. > therefore it constitutes an implicit license grant to Google. I don't think it works that way. I'm not sure if "implicit licensing" will hold in court (after all, there is a explicit license contradicting it), but even if it would, the only thing schema.org implies is that the data is structured. Here are schema.org terms and conditions: https://schema.org/docs/terms.html https://schema.org/docs/terms.html It never says you give them your content for free. > IANAL. IANAL either :)

annnnd 12y ago
Not sure why you got downvoted - here, have +1. I agree that they probably don't comply to the license by not linking to the license itself, however, I doubt anyone will take them to court for this. Also, this could be seen as quoting and is in some jurisdictions allowed (with due restrictions). So maybe they don't care about license... Aren't they doing the same for ages, when they show relevant portion of the page with the keywords?
- kaoD 12y ago
  > I doubt anyone will take them to court for this. Probably not worth the hassle for SO, but it's a matter of courtesy. "Since you're so kind to add metadata and have a permissive license, I'll respect your license so you keep attaching metadata to your content." Everyone wins. > Aren't they doing the same for ages, when they show relevant portion of the page with the keywords? Good point there. I'm not knowledgeable enough on what exactly constitutes fair use for search engines. Is remixing the content actually a snippet, or is it a derived work? I'll research it ASAP, out of curiosity.
kbenson 12y ago
As the owner of the content doesn't SO reserve the right to also release in whatever other license they deem useful? Is there some source stating they didn't give Google express use to use the content in the exact way it's currently being used? Edit: My thanks to the people who spelled out in the terms. It appears it is CC licensed.
- icebraining 12y ago
  As the owner of the content doesn't SO reserve the right SO isn't the copyright holder of the content; the users are. http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service#3SubscriberContent http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service#3SubscriberC...
  - DanBC 12y ago
    http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service > 3. Subscriber Content > You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
    - kaoD 12y ago
      > under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Did you read the words before those? > irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange > You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. This bit seems like SE owns the content: > You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed (“Content License”) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You.

by kaoD 12y ago

annnnd 12y ago

Not sure why you got downvoted - here, have +1. I agree that they probably don't comply to the license by not linking to the license itself, however, I doubt anyone will take them to court for this. Also, this could be seen as quoting and is in some jurisdictions allowed (with due restrictions). So maybe they don't care about license... Aren't they doing the same for ages, when they show relevant portion of the page with the keywords?

kaoD 12y ago
> I doubt anyone will take them to court for this. Probably not worth the hassle for SO, but it's a matter of courtesy. "Since you're so kind to add metadata and have a permissive license, I'll respect your license so you keep attaching metadata to your content." Everyone wins. > Aren't they doing the same for ages, when they show relevant portion of the page with the keywords? Good point there. I'm not knowledgeable enough on what exactly constitutes fair use for search engines. Is remixing the content actually a snippet, or is it a derived work? I'll research it ASAP, out of curiosity.

kbenson 12y ago

As the owner of the content doesn't SO reserve the right to also release in whatever other license they deem useful? Is there some source stating they didn't give Google express use to use the content in the exact way it's currently being used? Edit: My thanks to the people who spelled out in the terms. It appears it is CC licensed.

icebraining 12y ago
As the owner of the content doesn't SO reserve the right SO isn't the copyright holder of the content; the users are. http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service#3SubscriberContent http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service#3SubscriberC...
- DanBC 12y ago
  http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service http://stackexchange.com/legal/terms-of-service > 3. Subscriber Content > You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
  - kaoD 12y ago
    > under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Did you read the words before those? > irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange > You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. This bit seems like SE owns the content: > You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed (“Content License”) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You.