However, that relies on the order in time in which the modifications are applied, the license version can only ever increase or stay constant in the adaptations. This might kill the one button to automatically migrate the license version of all my content idea.
However, that relies on the order in time in which the modifications are applied, the license version can only ever increase or stay constant in the adaptations. This might kill the one button to automatically migrate the license version of all my content idea.
My personal take on all of this as of March 5 2020
The crucial license information was kind of hidden in a hyperlink in the ToS, the site footer was mostly just decoration. All content contributed before August 2010 is licensed CC BY-SA 2.5, all content contributed between August 2010 and May 2018 is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and all content contributed since then is CC BY-SA 4.0. Based on that everyone can figure out the license of a particular Q&A by looking at the time stamps.
The company including Jeff Atwood got it wrong twice, once in August 2010 and once in September 2019, where they gave the impression that they could re-license older content. With this Q&A here, they rectified the error and promised to help people determining the correct license of a piece of content as conveniently as possible. The footer still needs to be rectified too, there are currently three different licenses for the content. Thankfully, all these CC BY-SA licenses allow combining them and create adaptations and the adaptations need to be licensed under the same or a higher version of CC BY-SA, which we/the company did.
My personal take on all of this as of March 5 2020
The crucial license information was kind of hidden in a hyperlink in the ToS, the site footer was mostly just decoration. All content contributed before August 2010 is licensed CC BY-SA 2.5, all content contributed between August 2010 and May 2018 is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and all content contributed since then is CC BY-SA 4.0. Based on that everyone can figure out the license of a particular Q&A by looking at the time stamps.
The company including Jeff Atwood got it wrong twice, once in August 2010 and once in September 2019, where they gave the impression that they could re-license older content. With this Q&A here, they rectified the error and promised to help people determining the correct license of a piece of content as conveniently as possible. The footer still needs to be rectified too, there are currently three different licenses for the content. Thankfully, all these CC BY-SA licenses allow combining them and create adaptations and the adaptations need to be licensed under the same or a higher version of CC BY-SA, which we/the company did.
Did the change really happen on May 2, 2018 as part of an ToS update?
In A new (2018) update to our Terms of Service is here, a change regarding the license was not announced. Looking at the current terms of service, a version of the CC BY-SA isn't mentioned. The change was announced in September 2019. I would like to see additional details/clarification how a license version changed without really mentioning it. How did it work?
Comment by Yaakov Ellis: "..2018-5-2 ToS linked to v4 of the CC license instead of v3.." The hyperlink may have made all the difference. That was not very obvious.
What about the change from CC BY-SA 2.5 to 3.0 in August 2010 then? Wouldn't that also require a similar treatment?
The concern in the community was that the company is not allowed to re-license the content. The current solution seems to at least not contradict this. However, the switch from CC BY-SA 2.5 to 3.0 in August 2010 seems to still contradict it. Was is legal to do that back then? Or would the old content from before August 2010 require a similar treatment?
Comment by Yaakov Ellis: "we are looking [..] to show v2.5 for posts predating this change but cannot commit to it yet" Sounds promising.
What really is the license of editing content from before May 2, 2018? Why can the company simply decide that it stays with the old license, even though it happens after May 2, 2018?
It seems that edits to the old content made under the new ToS shall for the time being remain with CC BY-SA 3.0. Is this possible under the current ToS? Or would the current ToS require everyone to contribute everything under CC BY-SA 4.0? It looks as if the company thinks it can simply decide what license a current contribution falls under. Is this observation right?
It's my understanding that CC is not backwards compatible, i.e. you cannot combine CC BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0 work under 3.0. What licensing possibilities are legally left for editing content from before May 2, 2018?
Comment by Yaakov Ellis: "..we are still investigating what the classification for these should be, and in the meantime are not going to be indicating a separate license for these edits.." This sounds like more clarification is needed on that subject. Basically currently the legal state of these edits is unclear.
Did the company give proper attribution to the content created before May 2, 2018 in the time between September 5, 2019 and March 3, 2020?
It seems that the content created before May 2, 2018 had always CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which would require attribution but CC BY-SA 3.0 wasn't mentioned during that period anywhere on the site. Was this a violation of the license of the older content?
Summary
I would be grateful for even more clarifications.
The comments by Yaakov Ellis were helpful but they also kind of highlight that there are still some legal issues to be figured out. I hope they get figured out in a timely fashion.
Did the change really happen on May 2, 2018 as part of an ToS update?
In A new (2018) update to our Terms of Service is here, a change regarding the license was not announced. Looking at the current terms of service, a version of the CC BY-SA isn't mentioned. The change was announced in September 2019. I would like to see additional details/clarification how a license version changed without really mentioning it. How did it work?
What about the change from CC BY-SA 2.5 to 3.0 in August 2010 then? Wouldn't that also require a similar treatment?
The concern in the community was that the company is not allowed to re-license the content. The current solution seems to at least not contradict this. However, the switch from CC BY-SA 2.5 to 3.0 in August 2010 seems to still contradict it. Was is legal to do that back then? Or would the old content from before August 2010 require a similar treatment?
What really is the license of editing content from before May 2, 2018? Why can the company simply decide that it stays with the old license, even though it happens after May 2, 2018?
It seems that edits to the old content made under the new ToS shall for the time being remain with CC BY-SA 3.0. Is this possible under the current ToS? Or would the current ToS require everyone to contribute everything under CC BY-SA 4.0? It looks as if the company thinks it can simply decide what license a current contribution falls under. Is this observation right?
It's my understanding that CC is not backwards compatible, i.e. you cannot combine CC BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0 work under 3.0. What licensing possibilities are legally left for editing content from before May 2, 2018?
Did the company give proper attribution to the content created before May 2, 2018 in the time between September 5, 2019 and March 3, 2020?
It seems that the content created before May 2, 2018 had always CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which would require attribution but CC BY-SA 3.0 wasn't mentioned during that period anywhere on the site. Was this a violation of the license of the older content?
Summary
I would be grateful for even more clarifications.
Did the change really happen on May 2, 2018 as part of an ToS update?
In A new (2018) update to our Terms of Service is here, a change regarding the license was not announced. Looking at the current terms of service, a version of the CC BY-SA isn't mentioned. The change was announced in September 2019. I would like to see additional details/clarification how a license version changed without really mentioning it. How did it work?
Comment by Yaakov Ellis: "..2018-5-2 ToS linked to v4 of the CC license instead of v3.." The hyperlink may have made all the difference. That was not very obvious.
What about the change from CC BY-SA 2.5 to 3.0 in August 2010 then? Wouldn't that also require a similar treatment?
The concern in the community was that the company is not allowed to re-license the content. The current solution seems to at least not contradict this. However, the switch from CC BY-SA 2.5 to 3.0 in August 2010 seems to still contradict it. Was is legal to do that back then? Or would the old content from before August 2010 require a similar treatment?
Comment by Yaakov Ellis: "we are looking [..] to show v2.5 for posts predating this change but cannot commit to it yet" Sounds promising.
What really is the license of editing content from before May 2, 2018? Why can the company simply decide that it stays with the old license, even though it happens after May 2, 2018?
It seems that edits to the old content made under the new ToS shall for the time being remain with CC BY-SA 3.0. Is this possible under the current ToS? Or would the current ToS require everyone to contribute everything under CC BY-SA 4.0? It looks as if the company thinks it can simply decide what license a current contribution falls under. Is this observation right?
It's my understanding that CC is not backwards compatible, i.e. you cannot combine CC BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0 work under 3.0. What licensing possibilities are legally left for editing content from before May 2, 2018?
Comment by Yaakov Ellis: "..we are still investigating what the classification for these should be, and in the meantime are not going to be indicating a separate license for these edits.." This sounds like more clarification is needed on that subject. Basically currently the legal state of these edits is unclear.
Did the company give proper attribution to the content created before May 2, 2018 in the time between September 5, 2019 and March 3, 2020?
It seems that the content created before May 2, 2018 had always CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which would require attribution but CC BY-SA 3.0 wasn't mentioned during that period anywhere on the site. Was this a violation of the license of the older content?
Summary
I would be grateful for even more clarifications.
The comments by Yaakov Ellis were helpful but they also kind of highlight that there are still some legal issues to be figured out. I hope they get figured out in a timely fashion.
Loading
Loading