Currently, Stack Exchange sites use the CC BY-SA 2.5 license.
There's a lot of content (not the least of which is Wikipedia) under the newer 3.0 version of this license.
Content licensed under 2.5 is forward-compatible and can be used with the 3.0 license, but the reverse isn't true -- CC BY-SA...
Good catch, I updated it to refer to 2.5 for consistency if nothing else. Not sure if the minor tweaks of 3.0 over 2.5 are particularly relevant to us, or not.
edit: as of yesterday, we re-licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0.
I'd actually say it was less open than it is now ;p
I'm always a bit worried if @Catija leaves another comment on a question I have been commenting on. Is it the tone of voice that I need to improve on? Or am I just blurry in my comments?
I can see the questions... there's 8 and 5-6 are deleted and half of them read like attempts to ask the same question in different ways, none of which seem appropriate to Academia... essentially "How do I stack up to others in this field?" or "What classes should I take?"
It is a nice circle: Reddit says Academia is not good, posts off-topic stuff, post get closed, deleted. Goes back to Reddit confirming Academia is not good.
I ... don't really know how to combat someone calling a site "toxic" just because their questions were closed. None of the comments I see were mean and many were attempting to help.
I'm not particularly concerned what consenting adults do in their free time, and I'm uninterested in scrutinizing why people buy those, and I understand why someone would sell them if it gets them through a tough spot financially
@ShadowTheDragonWizard true, but I'm trying to imagine the situation
I'm saying if I had the opportunity, I most likely wouldn't say no. Doubly so if it meant getting through uni without debt. I'm 100% not judging people who do
I was somewhat surprised on the anger over the license change
I mean like, yeah. Sure. Principle and all, but we're talking about cc by sa 3.0 -> 4.0. it's even still the same license, just with some updated legalese.
It's like a new announcement will be "Hello folks! How are you? We removed the voting arrows on all Stack Exchange sites. Please let us know if you have any feedback. Have a good day. (Of course we won't reply back, but you can still write your feedback)"
@ShadowTheDragonWizard Well, if the EU passes some kind of nice law that says up/down votes are incentives for people to become addicted to life online, and bans them... and SE complies... what's there to discuss?
@Magisch I haven't seen anyone complaining about the actual CC 4.0 license. The issue is that SE hasn't presented a clear argument on why they are allowed to change the license this way. And if the armchair lawyers are right and SE doesn't have a clear legal way to change the license, this introduces a lot of confusion and trouble
@MadScientist I don't even care to be honest. CC BY SA 4.0 seems to be mainly rewording for clarity, some non applicable new legalese, and official translations. That is such a nothingburger if the process is right or not is irrelevant to me
> You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license
I suppose the critical question is what the the means
Interestingly CC does explicitly say what version of the licence they are covered under in their tos - but I suspect while SE can alter their TOS, folks would be unhappy with them saying "version 4.0 or better" there
The premise of the musical was that they couldn't afford to make a mediocre musical. It either had to be royally good or royally bad, and the idea of having a plot at all came very late into production.
@ShadowTheDragonWizard That's exactly how you'd explain it. Pretentious movies that take themselves too seriously, ignoring how dumb their idea or plot is.
@ShadowTheDragonWizard Well, just for comparison, this one is 2.5/10 on IMDB and The Room is 3.7.
@ShadowTheDragonWizard Personal Care Assistant is projected to be one of fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. at least.
Not one of best paying, though.
@Magisch It's enriching in terms of things it brings to light. A lot of people did not realize that the rights they grant to SE according to TOS go beyond CC-whatever.
E.g., SO is under no obligation to give credit to the authors.
> you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content
@404 but is it available for anyone? Think it's meant only for those who really need it, what I meant in my "job idea" is for people who want it for, well, other reasons. :)
@Mgetz doubt it... but like I said, even if they do, it has little effect here. Bibi has enough followers who will vote for him no matter what he'll do.
I was told there would be a zombie apocalypse as a result of net neutrality being... controlled by elected representatives of the people rather than an unelected body of bureaucrats? Goddamnit, where's my zombie apocalypse? I've been preparing for YEARS and I'm turning blue in certain parts. — Won'tJan 9 at 0:52
I wonder what's to stop people from intentionally failing audits more than 30 days apart to get the review bans to get halved and halved over and over again, so that they're an infinitesimally small length?
I mean, if a moderator issues a manual review ban, it can be for any length, and subsequent automatic review bans consider that to be the length of the "last" review ban
But how can moderators notice and issue such a ban?
Good catch, I updated it to refer to 2.5 for consistency if nothing else. Not sure if the minor tweaks of 3.0 over 2.5 are particularly relevant to us, or not.
edit: as of yesterday, we re-licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0.
