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.

14
  • 9
    If each post in the database has its own license then it would be easier to allow people to mark their posts as CC0, CC BY, or MIT. But lets fix the existing issues first. Commented Mar 3, 2020 at 23:37
  • @curiousdannii I would hope that would be the approach taken, especially since there's an acknowledgment that there may be events that will require new contributions to be under a new and different license with short notice. Commented Mar 3, 2020 at 23:53
  • Multi-licensing sounds possible, each contribution could have a list of licenses attached. Figuring out the license of combined works might be an obstacle though. And that would require at least one more change of the ToS. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 9:38
  • 14
    We are looking into also showing the 2.5 license number on posts predating that change. Cannot commit to it yet. As far as allowing users to choose which license to use, that is a bigger issue that I can't comment on or commit to right now. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 11:20
  • 3
    @YaakovEllis Thank you. I do hope that displaying the appropriate license (2.5, 3.0, and 4.0) is the first priority. I would also hope that the second priority is a way for the author of the content to opt into upgrade to the "current" license for their contributions easily. The support for user-selected licensing is a pretty big wish. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 13:04
  • @ThomasOwens Note that you can't upgrade or revoke a CC licence. So it would be dual licensed if anything. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 12:08
  • 2
    @GregoryCurrie That's incorrect. If I own the work (which I do), I can change the license at any point in time. People who received it under the old license don't have the old license revoked (I believe all the CC licenses are irrevocable - I know that CC BY-SA is), but they can always receive it again under the new license. I guess, effectively, there may be copies out there under both licenses, but you can control the license at the point of distribution. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 13:25
  • @ThomasOwens I think you'll find that I am correct. As you said, the CC BY-SA licences are irrevocable. You can dual licence however. Once it is published with a specific CC licence, it will, at a bare minimum, have that licence. Even if you decide to change the licence notice, others are free to treat it as the old licence as it was published with that licence. You can of course, stop distributing it under CC BY-SA 3, but that doesn't mean the licence no longer applies, it does. Any existing copies of the work can be used as if it was licenced under CC BY-SA 3. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 13:56
  • @ThomasOwens While it feels like an academic point, it has a real impact when talking about derivative works. If it was ever published under a CC licence, it will have that licence. Derivative works licenced under CC BY-SA 3, don't become invalidated if the original work gets "upgraded" from CC BY-SA 3 to CC BY-SA 4. This is because CC BY-SA 3 is irrevocable. If you could transition your work from CC BY-SA 3 to CC BY-SA 4, that would mean that all derivative work becomes invalid. Which is why one of the reasons the CC licences are irrevocable. So, as I said, at best, you can dual licence. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 14:05
  • 2
    @GregoryCurrie If I post something on the Internet licensed to anyone who obtains it under CC BY-SA 3.0, anyone who obtains it must follow those rules forever (and the same to people who obtain it from them and so on). I can then upgrade the license to CC BY-SA 4.0. Anyone who obtains it after that point must follow CC BY-SA 4.0 rules (and people who obtain it from them or derivative works and so on). The same work, depending on where it's obtained from and when, may be under different licenses. I suppose that is dual licensed. I can't force people who got it under 3.0 to follow the 4.0 rules. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 14:15
  • @ThomasOwens Excellent. I also do wonder what such a feature would effectively mean when there are multiple people worked on the one piece of content, when an edit history represents a chain of derivative works. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 14:51
  • @GregoryCurrie Same. Maybe it's not feasible because of the edits. At that point, you're so deep in nuances and weeds that I'm a bit out of my league. Especially since some edits may have been approved or accepted by the author or other users if the user making them didn't have permission to push edits without review. So there are several actors involved. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 14:57
  • 1
    Replace "The license wasn't unilaterally changed once, but twice" with "The license wasn't misrepresented once, but twice" Commented Mar 6, 2020 at 11:32
  • @ThomasOwens You can always choose to have the content you've authored and posted here available under a license in addition to the CC BY-SA license mentioned in the TOS. There are many users which state that such licenses are granted either in their post(s) or in their profile. What can't be done is have it not also licensed under the CC BY-SA license mentioned in the TOS. A person who obtains a copy can then choose which incense they desire to use from the licenses you've granted and under which it's still being distributed as of the time and from where they obtain a copy. Commented Mar 7, 2020 at 21:30