Timeline for Is Stack Exchange's CC-BY-SA v3.0 content compatible with the GPL?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Apr 26, 2018 at 22:50 | comment | added | Trevor | No. It means that they think in practice when a downstream user took a CC BY-SA work with contributions under versions 3.0 as well as 2.5 and/or 2.0 they in practice tried to comply with their (multiple) CC BY-SA obligations by following the CC BY-SA 3.0 instructions (i.e. for attribution etc.) and didn't bother to read the CC BY-SA 2.0 or 2.5 text. Note at the time of that draft there were zero non-CC compatible licenses and I'm not aware of a situation where following only CC BY-SA 3.0 license would lead to a conflict with the 2.0 or 2.5 terms so this probably wasn't very controversial. | |
| Apr 26, 2018 at 22:38 | comment | added | unor | I see (I thought the "With version 4.0" in the linked FAQ applied only to the sentence it appears in, but reading it now again, I guess it applies to everything that follows). -- About the draft where they added this provision in 4.0, CC commented: "This change, which we believe comports with common practice under 3.0, […]". Do you have an idea what they meant with this? Did they assume that it would be allowed for 3.0, too, even if not stated? | |
| Apr 26, 2018 at 22:30 | comment | added | Trevor | One could alternatively think in terms of compatible "license stacks". CC BY-SA 4.0 + GPLv3 is a compatible stack as is CC BY-SA 3.0 + CC BY-SA 4.0 as is CC BY-SA 2.0 + CC BY-SA 2.5 + CC BY-SA 3.0 + CC BY-SA 4.0. However CC BY-SA 3.0 + GPLv3 is an incompatible stack as is CC BY-SA 3.0 + CC BY-SA 4.0 + GPLv3 as is CC BY-SA 1.0 + CC BY-SA 4.0. | |
| Apr 26, 2018 at 22:24 | comment | added | Trevor | Technically a downstream user could have to comply with a whole stack of licenses like CC BY-SA 2.0 plus CC BY-SA 2.5 plus CC BY-SA 3.0 plus the "last CC BY-SA 4.0 compatible license applied" which is why the provision got added to CC BY-SA 4.0 in order to simplify matters for downstream users but does not retroactively apply to earlier CC BY-SA licenses. | |
| Apr 26, 2018 at 22:22 | comment | added | Trevor | The "last license applied" provision was only added in CC BY-SA 4.0 so that if someone adapts a CC BY-SA 4.0 work under a compatible license a downstream user may select that compatible license. That provision is not present in CC BY-SA 3.0 and downstream users may not choose to only comply with the "last license applied" but must comply with both CC BY-SA 3.0 as well as the "last license applied". Furthermore, the user should know that it is also licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 since proper attribution is a requirement of the license and license details should be part of an attribution. | |
| Apr 26, 2018 at 22:17 | comment | added | unor | Interesting, glad you answered :) I guess I don’t fully get it yet, I hope you don’t mind my questions. -- If I understand the FAQ How does ShareAlike compatibility work? correctly: if someone made BY-SA 4.0 contributions to a BY-SA 3.0 work, both licenses apply. But people that get this adaptation may decide to follow only "the last license applied", so they may attribute it only according to BY-SA 4.0. Now, if someone gets this work, he never learns that it’s also licensed under BY-SA 3.0. -- Would you agree? | |
| Apr 26, 2018 at 19:59 | review | Late answers | |||
| Apr 27, 2018 at 5:58 | |||||
| Apr 26, 2018 at 19:44 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 27, 2018 at 5:58 | |||||
| Apr 26, 2018 at 19:44 | history | answered | Trevor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |