Funny how one has to learn about this stuff months after it happened, just because one accidentally stumbles upon some link in the comment section of another meta post. That’s not OK. Also, I didn’t get any email telling me about this change and I wasn’t asked if I am OK with my content being re-licensed either. (Sending a typical system email notification to existing users isn't that hard — SE does that multiple times a week; eg when your posts get a comment.)
As a reply to this MetaSE post, I feel forced post my two cents here. Not only because this Q&A seems to be the appropriate place to do so, but also to clarify the legal parts that Stack Exchange Inc. seems to ignoreobviously ignores.
On September 5, 2019, Stack Exchange, Inc. declared it re-licensed all content from CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0, including all previous contributions. The network's terms of service allows Stack Exchange Inc to use the licensdelicensed material made available to them, as users provide a non-exclusive license to allow for commercial use among other purposes. However, it also makes clear that content is provided to other people viewing the site under the CC BY-SA license. Stack Exchange Inc's re-licensing announcement displayed at Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0 states and confirms that content was previously licensed under version 3.0. Pursuant to that license.
Stack Exchange Inc does notnot have the right to unilaterally change the license of previously submitted content. Since I am the original copyright holder of my posts, Stack Exchange Inc. needs my permission to re-license the content I made available under the license in effect and mutually agreed upon at the time of posting. Without my permission to chamgechange the license, all my content remains licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
To be clear: I did not and do not intend to give Stack Exchange Inc. active or passive permission to re-license my content to another license;any other license or license version; resulting in the fact that CC BY-SA 3.0 remains in effect for all my contributions.
As a reminder: underStack Exchange Inc is licensee of the content I posted here. It's not the other way around.
Under no applicable law — neither international laws, nor US laws, nor any EU laws (I, the licensor, am located in the EU) — are licensees permitted to bluntly re-license work which was provided to under a specific license and license version by the licensor — me .
Stack Exchange Inc. is generally welcome to express their objections and/or seek re-licensing allowance by contacting the copyright holder – me – in writing via email and/or postal mail. I would like to remind Stack Exchange Inc. about the fact that Stack Exchange Inc. has my email address on file. Any related contacting efforts via the Stack Exchange network itself (eg the internal website messaging system, website chat, MetaSE posts like this Q&A, etc), or any other means of communication (eg phone, telefax, Twitter messages, etc), can and will be ignored. Simpler stated: communication about legal issues or license changes will only be accepted in writing, using the usual communication means that businesses normally use when discussing such changes and potentially targettinf contract changes.
Based on the legal issues Stack Exchange Inc. introduced with their sneaky and unacceptable “re-licensing” attempt and the following related action(s), I am herewith halting all further contributions to the Stack Exchange network websites. This is not likely to change, unless Stack Exchange Inc. resolves the re-licensing issuey they introduced by not asking for my consent as the copyright holder and licensor.
Being the copyright holder amd licensor of my posted content, it should be logic and clear that I generally reserve all rights to enforce and secure my rights now and at any given time in the future if I deem it to be necessary to do so to protect my intellectual property against misuse by Stack Exchange Inc. or any other licensee.
The licensee — in this case Stack Exchange Inc. — is meanwhile given time to revert the unacceptable re-licensing attempt, or to seek permission from me to use my content under another llicense on yet-to-be-discussed terms and conditions.
Last but not least, I herewith benevolently remind Stack Exhchange Inc that one-sided contract changes are against the lawone-sided contract changes are against both national as well as international laws, and therefore generally voidtherefore generally void — even on an international level. Ignorance of that fact does not magically legalize unauthorized license change attempts.
Funny how one has to learn about this stuff months after it happened, just because one accidentally stumbles upon some link in the comment section of another meta post. That’s not OK. Also, I didn’t get any email telling me about this change and I wasn’t asked if I am OK with my content being re-licensed either.
As a reply to this post, I feel forced post my two cents here. Not only because this Q&A seems to be the appropriate place to do so, but also to clarify the legal parts that Stack Exchange Inc. seems to ignore.
On September 5, 2019, Stack Exchange, Inc. declared it re-licensed all content from CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0, including all previous contributions. The network's terms of service allows Stack Exchange Inc to use the licensde material made available to them, as users provide a non-exclusive license to allow for commercial use among other purposes. However, it also makes clear that content is provided to other people viewing the site under the CC BY-SA license. Stack Exchange Inc's re-licensing announcement displayed at Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0 states and confirms that content was previously licensed under version 3.0. Pursuant to that license.
Stack Exchange Inc does not have the right to unilaterally change the license of previously submitted content. Since I am the original copyright holder of my posts, Stack Exchange Inc. needs my permission to re-license the content I made available under the license in effect and mutually agreed upon at the time of posting. Without my permission to chamge the license, all my content remains licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
To be clear: I did not and do not intend to give Stack Exchange Inc. active or passive permission to re-license my content to another license; resulting in the fact that CC BY-SA 3.0 remains in effect for all my contributions.
As a reminder: under no applicable law are licensees permitted to bluntly re-license work which was provided to under a specific license by the licensor — me .
Stack Exchange Inc. is generally welcome to express their objections and/or seek re-licensing allowance by contacting the copyright holder – me – in writing via email and postal mail. I would like to remind Stack Exchange Inc. about the fact that Stack Exchange Inc. has my email address on file. Any related contacting efforts via the Stack Exchange network itself, or any other means of communication, can and will be ignored.
Based on the legal issues Stack Exchange Inc. introduced with their “re-licensing” attempt and related action(s), I am herewith halting all further contributions to the Stack Exchange network websites. This is not likely to change, unless Stack Exchange Inc. resolves the re-licensing issuey they introduced by not asking for my consent as the copyright holder and licensor.
Being the copyright holder amd licensor of my posted content, it should be clear that I generally reserve all rights to enforce and secure my rights now and at any given time in the future if I deem it to be necessary to do so to protect my intellectual property against misuse by Stack Exchange Inc. or any other licensee. The licensee — in this case Stack Exchange Inc. — is meanwhile given time to revert the unacceptable re-licensing attempt, or to seek permission from me to use my content under another llicense on yet-to-be-discussed terms and conditions.
Last but not least I herewith benevolently remind Stack Exhchange Inc that one-sided contract changes are against the law and therefore generally void — even on an international level. Ignorance of that fact does not magically legalize unauthorized license change attempts.
Funny how one has to learn about this stuff months after it happened, just because one accidentally stumbles upon some link in the comment section of another meta post. That’s not OK. Also, I didn’t get any email telling me about this change and I wasn’t asked if I am OK with my content being re-licensed either. (Sending a typical system email notification to existing users isn't that hard — SE does that multiple times a week; eg when your posts get a comment.)
As a reply to this MetaSE post, I feel forced post my two cents here. Not only because this Q&A seems to be the appropriate place to do so, but also to clarify the legal parts that Stack Exchange Inc. obviously ignores.
On September 5, 2019, Stack Exchange, Inc. declared it re-licensed all content from CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0, including all previous contributions. The network's terms of service allows Stack Exchange Inc to use the licensed material made available to them, as users provide a non-exclusive license to allow for commercial use among other purposes. However, it also makes clear that content is provided to other people viewing the site under the CC BY-SA license. Stack Exchange Inc's re-licensing announcement displayed at Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0 states and confirms that content was previously licensed under version 3.0. Pursuant to that license.
Stack Exchange Inc does not have the right to unilaterally change the license of previously submitted content. Since I am the original copyright holder of my posts, Stack Exchange Inc. needs my permission to re-license the content I made available under the license in effect and mutually agreed upon at the time of posting. Without my permission to change the license, all my content remains licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
To be clear: I did not and do not intend to give Stack Exchange Inc. active or passive permission to re-license my content to any other license or license version; resulting in the fact that CC BY-SA 3.0 remains in effect for all my contributions.
As a reminder: Stack Exchange Inc is licensee of the content I posted here. It's not the other way around.
Under no applicable law — neither international laws, nor US laws, nor any EU laws (I, the licensor, am located in the EU) — are licensees permitted to bluntly re-license work which was provided to under a specific license and license version by the licensor — me .
Stack Exchange Inc. is generally welcome to express their objections and/or seek re-licensing allowance by contacting the copyright holder – me – in writing via email and/or postal mail. I would like to remind Stack Exchange Inc. about the fact that Stack Exchange Inc. has my email address on file. Any related contacting efforts via the Stack Exchange network itself (eg the internal website messaging system, website chat, MetaSE posts like this Q&A, etc), or any other means of communication (eg phone, telefax, Twitter messages, etc), can and will be ignored. Simpler stated: communication about legal issues or license changes will only be accepted in writing, using the usual communication means that businesses normally use when discussing such changes and potentially targettinf contract changes.
Based on the legal issues Stack Exchange Inc. introduced with their sneaky and unacceptable “re-licensing” attempt and the following related action(s), I am herewith halting all further contributions to the Stack Exchange network websites. This is not likely to change, unless Stack Exchange Inc. resolves the re-licensing issuey they introduced by not asking for my consent as the copyright holder and licensor.
Being the copyright holder amd licensor of my posted content, it should be logic and clear that I generally reserve all rights to enforce and secure my rights now and at any given time in the future if I deem it to be necessary to do so to protect my intellectual property against misuse by Stack Exchange Inc. or any other licensee.
The licensee — in this case Stack Exchange Inc. — is meanwhile given time to revert the unacceptable re-licensing attempt, or to seek permission from me to use my content under another llicense on yet-to-be-discussed terms and conditions.
Last but not least, I herewith benevolently remind Stack Exhchange Inc that one-sided contract changes are against both national as well as international laws, and therefore generally void. Ignorance of that fact does not magically legalize unauthorized license change attempts.
