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*

19
  • 2
    "Was it run by her and/or the company's top attorney(s)?" On one hand I would assume that all matters regarding the content license are run by their attorney(s), but on the other hand, the announcement of the May 2018 ToS change doesn't mention the license change even once, so there may have been at least an internal communication problem and that was bad for the users who did not receive enough information. An announcement of a ToS change should ideally include all relevant changes in a generally understandable language. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 9:28
  • 17
    There were notices given that we have been working on it (see Aaron Halls transcript of his meeting with Prashanth as well as Teresa's post two weeks ago). That said, there were definitely some pretty significant internal communications failures that led to this scenario in the first place, and in our taking so long to respond to it. We definitely regret that things happen the way that they did. The Chief Counsel has definitely been involved in the formulation of the post above. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 11:09
  • 5
    I can't answer 2 and 3 because they do relate to legal advice. Moving forward, we are establishing very clear internal processes for the review of any significant public communications by SME's an inside the company (and outside, if appropriate), as well as CMs and other relevant parties. This process will include moderators in the review process as well. (We hope to post more details soon on these processes). Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 11:14
  • 24
    So as it stands, Stack Exchange still may not have the right to distribute the content as CC BY-SA 3.0, because it may have been revoked the instant you purported to distribute it under 4.0. That's far more of an issue than you realize, even if you're not able to answer it personally. I wouldn't mind hearing what the company's attorneys have to say in that regard. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 13:32
  • 12
    And also, I don't think a single person posting a transcript really counts as "notice". It was still months before that happened, and there was never a response on any posts solely relating to licensing. The "internal processes" should be shared publicly to ensure this never happens again. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 13:34
  • 3
    @jhprattGOFUNDMERELICENSING While SE definitely violated the 3.0 license as you explain, I'm not convinced dwelling on this point is helpful or relevant. (1) Even if the CC license terminates they can still distribute per the ToS fallback license. That sucks more for downstream users as they can no longer enjoy the CC license for content received via SE, but doesn't noticeably affect SE. (2) One argument SE could have made is that they did have the right per the ToS to unilaterally relicense content to 4.0. If so, they'd be a licensor not licensee and would be unaffected by termination. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 13:45
  • 12
    @amon Yes, they unquestionably have the right to distribute it. However, they cannot purport it to be under a license it is not. That opens them up to secondary liability. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 14:44
  • 8
    @amon For some time there was apparently no TOS at all. And it's not clear that any license granted by the TOS is enforceable, since users are not forced to accept the TOS to create an account or continue to use the site when the TOS changes. All I saw last year was a dismissible banner mentioning TOS changes. My main account never even saw that banner. IANAL, but IMNSHO, SE is on very thin ice with regard to their ability to distribute their entire history of content. Commented Mar 4, 2020 at 21:57
  • 3
    @amon not asking a question because the answer would suck for downstream users is not a good approach for legal issues IMO. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 12:14
  • 5
    @YaakovEllis Will an answer be provided with regard to why it took ~5 months to get a "response", if you're willing to call it that? (4) and (5) are also very important points that people deserve to know the answer to. Commented Mar 5, 2020 at 23:59
  • 2
    @jhprattGOFUNDMERELICENSING: You're wondering what the attorneys have to say. I can make an educated guess; as long as nobody complains formally there is no need to even have an opinion on the matter. I mean that literally. This is civil law; in the absence of a dispute no dispute is assumed. And parties to a dispute do not need to acknowledge the existence of such a dispute to others. To understand the importance of this, observe that the CC license is important to redistribution. Defining the exact parties to a case will be an issue on its own, and SO is best off by not trying to do that. Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 16:05
  • 6
    @jhprattGOFUNDMERELICENSING Stack Exchange may have violated their abillity to use the content under the CC BY-SA 3.0 terms, but the content is unquestionably still licensed under those terms as the licensor is the original content producer (individual users)--SE just facilitates the licensing. That being the case, it would not seem to be inappropriate to continue to display the fact that it is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 as that is relevant information for others wishing to use it. If it is necessary to specify under what terms the content is distributed that could be indicated elsewhere. Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 17:05
  • IANAL, but it seems to me that indeed, as @called2voyage notes, paragraph 7(a) (and 8(a) and 8(b)) of CC-By-SA 3.0 should protect downstream users regardless of whether SE's license was terminated or not. In particular, paragraph 7(a) says that section 8 survives termination, so downstream users should still continue to receive a valid license from the original author(s) even if they received the work from SE after SE's license was terminated. Commented Mar 11, 2020 at 13:32
  • 1
    @jhprattGOFUNDMERELICENSING, something to consider if/when you are filing a suit: section 8(e) of the CC BY-SA 3.0 seems to be incompatible with the additional license that SEInc. wants as part of their TOS. Commented Mar 11, 2020 at 16:05
  • 1
    … I do admit that, as a layperson, it's not clear to me whether and to what extent the paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of CC-By-SA 3.0 actually have any direct legal effect, or just serve as reminders of something that is effectively true anyway (due to the license being granted to everybody). In either case, however, they (and/or the facts they restate) are clearly not affected by the termination of the upstream license, whether due to the explicit survival clause in 7(a) or due to the fact that the termination of one license does not per se affect any licenses granted (before or after) to others. Commented Mar 11, 2020 at 21:28