Timeline for License my own answers under the GPL too?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 8:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 13, 2011 at 19:29 | comment | added | EAMann Mod | The TOS only state that all submitted content is licensed under CC BY-SA and that you grant the SE permission to use it. That license doesn't override other licenses I apply to my code, nor is it inherently removed if I choose to dual-license a snippet. It's a matter of me writing something, giving the SE permission to use/archive/distribute it under the terms of CC BY-SA, and explicitly giving developers the option to use it under the terms of the GPL/MIT/Apache/whatever license. Reread section 3 of the TOS ... | |
| Jun 13, 2011 at 19:05 | comment | added | Travis Northcutt | @EAMann & @Jan: I'm not ruling out the possibility that you may be right (nor am I trying to be disagreeable). I do think that some 'official' clarification would be quite helpful on this issue, perhaps from @Jeff-Atwood. | |
| Jun 13, 2011 at 19:02 | comment | added | Travis Northcutt | @Jan: It seems odd to me that a user of this site (someone who has explicitly agreed to the TOS of the site) could do something (state that their content is licensed under the GPL) that would enable a scenario whereby the language of the TOS (which states that all work here is licensed under the CC BY-SA license) is voided. I think the TOS (and the licensing language used in it) override anything stated on this site by a user of this site. Just because we state that our work is licensed under the GPL doesn't mean the site operator agrees to that. | |
| Jun 13, 2011 at 14:29 | comment | added | Jan Fabry | @tnorthcutt: If you dual-license your content, you give the user the option to choose one of the two licenses for your work. If they choose to use it under the GPL license, the CC BY-SA clauses don't apply, and vice-versa. So there is no conflict. | |
| Jun 13, 2011 at 14:10 | comment | added | EAMann Mod | Remember, a dual license gives the licensee the choice of which terms to be bound under. To keep content free on a SE site, content needs to be available under CC BY-SA. So long as you allow the "or" when people use your stuff, you should be in the clear. | |
| Jun 13, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | EAMann Mod | No, there's no conflict. Just as there's no conflict to my dual licensing my code as GPLv2 and GPLv3, even though the two versions are incompatible. The important thing to remember is that you are still the original owner of your content. By posting here, you're agreeing to license your content as CC BY-SA for the site (to protect it). But nothing restricts you from also licensing it as something else. | |
| Jun 13, 2011 at 12:45 | comment | added | Travis Northcutt | @EAMann so your interpretation of that TOS page is that we're free to license our content under the GPL, but all content we post here is also licensed under the CC BY-SA license? Seems like there'd be a conflict there, since the CC BY-SA requires that all distributions retain the CC BY-SA license: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 18:49 | comment | added | Chip Bennett | @Jan and @EAMann thanks; that makes perfect sense! | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 18:06 | comment | added | EAMann Mod | @Chip That statement in the terms of service doesn't prohibit dual licensing either. It's there to protect the SE network's right to distribute the content under CC-BY-SA, not to limit your right to distribute the work under other terms as well. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 17:42 | comment | added | Jan Fabry | @Chip: I don't think it is a problem that the site states all your content is CC-by-SA. It is not an exclusive license, you are free to license it again under other conditions. You just can't take anything away from the CC-by-SA freedoms. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 17:32 | comment | added | Jan Fabry | @EAMann: I could do this for all substantial code snippets (smaller ones will probably be just citations), but I explicitly want to allow all non-code contributions to be included in the Codex. I want to use the "fire" from this community to improve the Codex. So then I would need to add this line to all my posts? | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 17:30 | comment | added | Chip Bennett | Copyright is actually quite straight-forward: whomever originated a copyrightable work, and fixed it in a tangible medium, holds the copyright for that work, and thus holds exclusive rights to determine the license for that work. There is a problem, however: the SE terms of service state explicitly that subscribers agree that all posted content is licensed under CC-By-SA, with no apparent provision for dual-licensing. I agree with Rarst that this apparent discrepancy really needs to be addressed. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 17:05 | history | answered | EAMannMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |