Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

18
  • 22
    Stack Exchange doesn't own our posts, but only has a non-exclusive license to them. Commented Oct 2, 2019 at 11:25
  • @curiousdannii I guess that depends on the interpretation of the Terms. It reads like contributers (users) grant those rights to the publisher (SE). If they were just (re)publishing it under CC, they would't need that big chunk of Terms anyway, since they could already do that. Commented Oct 2, 2019 at 11:42
  • @Golex Perhaps yes. I think they just want to lay it out so there can be no confusion about what "irrevocably" means. Commented Oct 2, 2019 at 11:48
  • 3
    I think you can't irrevocably grant usage, since the CC license agreement states that you can lose the license if you break the agreements, so the license itself is explicitly revocable under some circumstances, and saying 'irrevocably' goes right against that. And that's the issue here. If they don't have the rights, their attempt to relicence it is actually a license breach, and would cause SE to basically lose the rights to even use all the content that was posted before under CC 3.0, as cegfault just wrote in their answer right after me. Commented Oct 2, 2019 at 11:59
  • 1
    I hope for SE this is not the case, but in the light of recent events of SE becoming evil in their attempts to become overly correct (and dozens of mods being angry), I'm kinda interested to see if the opposite could be true, and if somebody would actually make a case out of this. * popcorn gets * Commented Oct 2, 2019 at 12:01
  • @GolezTrol What do you mean in your comment by "overly correct"? I'm not aware of the events to which you refer. Commented Oct 3, 2019 at 4:20
  • @BasilBourque These events. Commented Oct 4, 2019 at 11:43
  • So, as I, not at all a lawyer, understand the further portions of the page which you didn't quote, CC-BY-SA 3.0 is forward compatible, which means that adaptations can be released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 but the original can't be changed without permission. So one solution might be to note that content before some date is CC-BY-SA 3.0 and content after it CC-BY-SA 4.0. That could even be marked in the edit history. Commented Oct 4, 2019 at 22:16
  • @mattdm If you're talking about the heading 'Adaptations of existing content', that still says that the publisher can only do that if they hold the right to the content, so for adaptations, basically the same applies as for existing content. Commented Oct 5, 2019 at 11:53
  • I'm looking at "If the contributor, then can license new contributions to an adaptation under 4.0 but original contributions remain under prior version unless express permission to upgrade is obtained." from that section, and the section below about mixed content. Commented Oct 5, 2019 at 12:30
  • Yes, but SO is not the contributor. Commented Oct 5, 2019 at 19:36
  • @GolezTrol I'm confused by your objection. The rights are held by the contributor, not Stack Exchange, so therefore this approach can be taken. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 4:40
  • Which approach? Upgrading the license? If contributors own the content, that approach can be taken by the contributors alone, which is the whole point of the ongoing discussion. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 7:11
  • @GolezTrol I think you're misunderstanding. SO is the publisher and the contributors own the rights. So we are exactly in the situation which that case describes. If the publisher owns the rights, the sentence "If the publisher, then can license all rights to an adaptation under 4.0." applies and everything is simple. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 19:43
  • 1
    I'm saying: SO has acted as if they own the rights, which they don't. But there's a pretty straightforward different approach to moving to 4.0 which they could take. Commented Oct 6, 2019 at 19:45