Tavern on the Meta

1:32 AM

Well it is a link only answer pretty much

and dosen't explain how getting a version off a third party site fixes anything

Aaron Hall

2:40 AM

We aren't exactly giving it a very warm reception in general: stackoverflow.com/search?q=deleted%3Aall+apkpure&mixed=0

IDK if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

(I say that lest we allow the "the site is always right" principle to blindly govern the outcome.)

2:58 AM

@AaronHall I believe this was posted in good faith. The answer basically says to downgrade to 2.12.0 and provide one of the alternative sites to download APK (since you can't downgrade with Play Store). Removing the link is safe.

4:38 AM

→ 22 messages moved to Chimney

5:36 AM

@OptimusPrime show a "status"! If the site is up, show Up, if the site is down, show Down

6:15 AM

@rene Idea: submit a DMCA takedown for one of your own posts published before the license changeover, claiming that the license is violated as a result of it and thus you now hold all copyrights. See if SE takes it down or files a counternotice. Then, sue.

IP disputes are exempted from the arbitration agreement, so it doesn't go against it to sue (which is the next logical step if the hoster files a counternotice and it's invalid).

Yes, that sounds like time well spent, for all parties involved.

Also good for the relationship ....

@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog moot anyways if you opted out

I still think it's somewhat of a storm in a waterglass

I've opted out

Though I wouldn't likely be the one to do it.

You really wanna submit a DMCA notice to SE? They'd probably take down all your content and be done with it. Even if they don't and submit a counternotice, you'd have to actually sue which is 5 digit dollars at the least for the most basic case.

Let's crowdfund it ...

6:20 AM

1. I'm personally OK with re-licensing my contributions to 4.0. 2. As of version 2.0 of the CC licenses, derivative works can be re-licensed to higher versions. 3. To date, no one has pointed out any specific reasons why they disagree with their contributions being licensed under 4.0, and all the questions asked about it are just pedantic to me.

@Magisch If they rule in your favor, you'll be awarded court costs

I never cared to start, all my stuff is available under cc0 as well

my philosophy on copyright of private works is do whatever you want including using it with no attribution or what have you but I don't guarantee anything

SE will not sue anyone for breach of license on my behalf and I've resolved to never sue anyone for copyright infringement regardless of the circumstances so this whole shabang doesn't affect me in the least

I'd also like to point out that just because there have been no responses to questions about ads, the re-licensing, etc. it doesn't mean that they are completely ignoring them. It's possible (and I trust) that there are internal discussions taking place on how to respond to them, and they just haven't concluded yet.

But still, as Monica Cellio once pointed out, internal discussions mean nothing for the public record.

There is this Dutch saying: You better sit still while you're being shaved ... I think that strategy might work here as well.

that probably translates badly but I have the parrot fill in for me if needed, if not the glasses ...

Tinkeringbell

@rene Never heard that one... Must be gender related XD

lol

6:36 AM

@Tinkeringbell Make it "getting a haircut" and it's gender neutral

8:15 AM

Good noon

8:30 AM

Hectic noon...

→ 7 messages moved to Chimney

@MetaAndrewT. That's such a noon thing

8:58 AM

reads up

The CC version complaint questions will likely continue till 1. There's an answer

2. There's a canonical question and people start closehammering against it

3. There isn't but people are sick of it and do it anyway

4. People get bored and wander off.... which is hardly the best stratergy for the broader community but meh

also weekends are like

the worst time for this sorta thing.

DMCA-ing yourself is... kinda interesting...

I expect anyone who files a DMCA against SE to have their account suspended though

Especially if they indicate they want to take legal action

Lepitox, dammit!

Oh, the extra "t" sucks. Which flows better? You be the judge

Leprosy!?

Ew

9:05 AM

@Magisch uhm, suspended?

@Aibobot Who's i'M

More likely politely deleted

Hard deleted.

@JourneymanGeek made gone somehow

@M.A.R. nothing to see here, move along

9:07 AM

I'd assume it's a safe bet that if you take legal action or threaten to take legal action over stack's use of your contributions that they'd file removing you and your ability to contribute as a matter of due dilligence

@Magisch Well - possible account deletion I'd guess. The tricky thing is actually removing your contributions

but sueing SE is the nuclear backpack option

You could hurt SE, but you're likely to obliterate yourself too if the network actually means anything to you

@rene That's not possible. The Earth is rotating with the speed of kilometers per second.

Or you're one of those folks who sues people for fun, or profit

@JourneymanGeek I was gonna but now I'm squinting hard at your face

Its a fuzzy face

noselicks

9:13 AM

@JourneymanGeek we have that here

people who will request some absurd accomodation at your business expecting you can't supply it or apply with an obvious kafka trap to sue for discrimination

@Magisch Well in theory...

If you ever wondered why it is a matter of policy to never give feedback on unsuccessful job applications, that is why

someone could make a new account, email in a waiver, post some random thing and...

but blah

that's not really good intent, its just being a bit of a d....

Don't you have to register a copyright before suing for copyright infringement? It's not as easy as that

actually I was under the impression that before a certain year that was the case

otherwise its automatic

9:15 AM

I'd imagine that suing through the keruffle and uncertainty of overlapping licenses is going to be rather fact specific and difficult and will probably cost a lot more then you get out of it, and even if you win iirc cost shifting isn't guaranteed

but you already gave SE a perpetual non exclusive licence....

which dosen't state what version of the CC licence

see this is why I wash my hands of the business completly

can't get stuck in unproductive license discussions if you use cc0

IANAL - but I studied a little practical legal stuff as a management and information security management major

@Magisch personally I don't really care.

there's much more important stuff I'd like SE to spend their time, effort and resources on

that is usually true for any involved party in any dispute about OSS licenses ever

@Magisch and there's a few edge cases anyway

So - is chat under the CC licence? There's a few rooms where conversations are supposed to be confidencial, and you are expected not to share them under CC

I've not bothered to look up what's the terms for say teams yet

I THINK there's a seperate TOS for that

9:23 AM

I think private chat rooms function under the ton of bricks theory of confidentiality

yup

And the good old social contract

you can't be sued if you share from them but relevant people will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you do

IANAL though so what do I know

@Magisch and people will be mad at you

most people who use private chat rooms are mods and I imagine most mods have the straightforward common sense that this doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out

@Magisch not always true

Sometimes we can be idiots ;p

or worse

too clever

We're human like anyone else, we have interpersonal conflicts, we get frustrated

and we deal with stuff our own ways.

9:33 AM

That's a strange thing with licensing on SE (and other collaborative sites). AFAIK, your contribution is automatically copyrighted, but permit a license on SE. So, in a sense, it's still your own... or partially..? or...?

@MetaAndrewT. Well - you certainly have to licence it to SE for them to use it, and that bit is literally standard internet services boilerplate

but since you're licencing it, you're not assigning copyright

merely permitting SE to use it under specific conditions

Ah, I see my fault... I can't infringe a copyright of my own...

Well in theory...

There's a very convoluted set of circumstances where its probably possible

involving time travel

!

But to me, as a occational petty dabbler in the legal black arts and maybe even an armchair paralawyer...

the simplest way to look at it is

9:38 AM

@MetaAndrewT. you can't infringe on a copyright of your own but you can on a license of your own

for instance if I write a tool and sell an exclusive license for that tool to someone and then continue providing it to others

I've licenced my content to Stack Exchange Internet Services, perpetually and irrevocably under

cough

"on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis pursuant to Creative Commons licensing terms (CC-BY-SA)"

So the point of ambiguity here is whether the licence version matters when we talk about CC-BY-SA or not

Now if you want to confuse this...

for a legal contract to take place there needs to be a 'meeting of the minds'

So - the question might be, at the time that you agreed to this contract - was there a clear, explicit understanding that it would be under a specific version of the licence or otherwise

and whether that was a factor in you choosing to accept the contract

The fact that it says Creative Commons licensing terms (CC-BY-SA) could be reasonably interpreted as meaning any version

Reminded of DMCA on Anime.SE, since I don't see SE will counterclaim it.

(sorry, jumped to another topic, but still thinking if it's really possible to DMCA yourself)

@MetaAndrewT. which probably also comes down to "Do we have time time/resources to fight this?"

@MetaAndrewT. I'm more familiar with laws of the commonwealth ;p

Personally, I couldn't care less about my license to three lines of code being upgraded from CC-by 3 to CC-by 4. The concerns about SE putting itself in legal danger are legit, though.

@MetaAndrewT. in practice?

considering a ton of this is automated, its probably happening multiple times a week ;p

9:48 AM

May 31 '17 at 15:15, by JNat

@JasonC The content provider (SE) cannot contest the validity of the claim, and are required to take action unless the request is not properly formatted

wow, that's.. quite old

@MetaAndrewT. and this is fundamentally how the dmca is broken

Copyright laws suck. QED.

I abhor the concept of copyright tbh

ironically as I'm in a profession that relies on copyright

QED rules. It's a great manga.

No u rule

And I mean it to sting

9:57 AM

Sting also rules. Great music.

> Blocked ads:
21 on this page

Huh, OK.

Uhh, talking about ads on SE, they crashed my Chrome tabs after leaving for hours :/

Getting the cute "Aw, Snap!" page...

Oof, your Chrome got Thanos'd?

10:14 AM

I don't mind copyright

Just the whole idea of perpetual copyright + the willingness to step over other rights for it

Allowing a creator to profit from his work is good

problem is its turned into a way for companies to profit from the work of long gone creators in perpetuity

I very mind pasteright!

@MetaAndrewT. erf. Adblock man

10:37 AM

@JourneymanGeek eh. I think that has to be balanced against the public interest of being able to efficiently utilize resources and benefit from progress

@Magisch as opposed to just locking it up and throwing away the key ;p

Particularly in software while I see the business necessity for proprietary code my idealist self would like a world of open source only

the point of copyright ought to be to create an incentive to create new works and protect creators.

for everything. Sunlight is after all the best disinfectant

@Magisch open source relies on copyright

10:40 AM

lack of copyright wouldn't preclude open source

Well - open source is still a licence

and to be enforcable, you're basically licencing your rights as the copyright holder under those specific terms

FOSS is literally using copyright as intended to enable a creator to share his work with specific conditions

Which happen to include sharing changes to it

But open source licences are meaningless without robust copyright protection (IE the fear of being sued like has happened in germany) or actual desire to do the right thing

I don't like the conditions. They're only necessary because of the preclusive nature of copyright

@Magisch now, lets say you release something under the GPL

MS takes it, forks it, and refuses to release the code after the changes

I wouldn't need to have 5 paragraphs about all the rights im disclaiming if I didn't have to. I wouldn't need complicated derivative licensing stipulations if it wasn't a thing to begin with

without copyright you have no tools for recourse

Well, that's lawyers

10:45 AM

all of this fluff around OSS is borne of the necessity of copyright

and people pretending to be lawyers

@Magisch but how do you preserve the moral rights as a creator without copyright as a bludgeon? ;p

and crap, that's a loaded question

you dont

Exactly

and that's not a function of copyright

I think the idea of moral creator rights is fundamentally poisonous to human progress

@Magisch I consider it natural

I own my works. I choose to share them freely where it makes sense

But they're still my own

Lets say I drew a picture

10:47 AM

I don't presume to own my works

everything that I am and can do is a product of my environment and the opportunities I've been given

That's deep bro

I own that message ^

Sep 14 '18 at 21:49, by rene

deep ...

Plagiarism

I do not pretend to be an artist

Its mine

someone takes it and puts it on a T shirt and makes a crapload of money off it

I get ownership rights on physical things that can be taken away from me

I don't actually care about they money, but its still my time and effort

My bike is mine, I bought it and paid for it and if you take it I wouldn't have it anymore

But my code is not mine. If you copied it it would still run for the purpose I designed it on my machine

10:51 AM

@JourneymanGeek That is the coolest signature I've ever seen

@Magisch the code isn't just code

its your time and effort. Its your accrued knowledge

Well, the same goes for my ideas

it might even be your creativity

yeah but I still have those

So, you build a table.

10:52 AM

If you took my code and made a billion dollars from selling it that I was never going to, I still have everything I made for myself

the table is a physical object, but its also not just the wood its made out of

what turns the table into wood is the tangible effort

What turns your random banging on a keyboard (like what I'm doing now) into a useful tool has value

But in your analogy if I could copy the table as it is without any cost or effort on your side, and your table would still be there, does it matter?

@Magisch well - what makes a wood a table?

Designing it is a non zero effort - whether its something explicitly or implicitly designed

right

in the spirit of efficiency, why shouldn't you be able to reuse my effort

that's pretty much the 'software' behind the table, the code that gets fed into the hardware - whether human or otherwise

10:54 AM

at no additional cost of effort for me

@Magisch well, economically? That means the person who designed that table might starve

and no new table designs get created

Thats an inadequacy of our economy though, not a moral imperative

@Magisch now for a moral imperitive

I'm proud of a lot of stuff I've done

a little less so than I should be

Someone would starve, dude.

money aside - what drives someone to create

There's certainly the utility - but that gives no incentive to share

I can keep my table designs to myself

Or the stuff I've worked out on my wierd dinky little home server

10:56 AM

you can be proud of your work without preventing others from using it

@Magisch but I'm not - I'm choosing to share it freely

but the choice is an important thing here

some years back I wrote a minecraft plugin for a server I'm still proud about doing it even though it got remixed and rebranded by someone who made it his own while updating and all that

the choice to arbitrarily deny others the benefit?

I have no obligation to share it

That I share it means I derive some value from it

Actually its probably true of spending time here too - either as a regular user or a mod

just that value isn't necessarily tangible

And thats why moral rights to a work feel important to me

12:10 PM

Wow... the chutzpah of some people

Yeah, but you'll have to work a little to do this. I'm afraid that you don't want to learn, but only to solve your assignment. In that case I cannot help you. My apologies for that, but I cannot make this clearer :) For sure that you'll be able to get an integer solution to this problem with the output of my five hours work. You appear as Senior Software Developer, but you seem not to be able to do anything with my output. My apologies again. — Luis Colorado 9 hours ago

12:23 PM

@Mgetz meh... flagged as unfriendly.

Enough of these and hopefully the (remaining) mod team will take proper action.

@ShadowTheCoffeeWizard we had some departures lately?

Yup, Yve and another mod.

Yve announced her departure, the other mod just disappeared.

@ShadowTheCoffeeWizard I'd prefer to have that comment kept

And likely others decreased their activity, according to what I read here.

@JohnDvorak what for? Mods can still see it, it's crap.

That's exactly the kind of comments that keep good people away from SO.

It's super patronizing.

"I know more than you, you know nothing!"

That's what it actually says.

With all the fires burning in/around SO we need all the good people inside, not kick them out.

it's not "I know more than you" but "I want you to show some effort"

12:31 PM

@JohnDvorak Seriously? That comment is basically "Well you call yourself a senior developer but you're acting like a uni-student, figure it out." It's about as dickish and unkind as you can get and not actually throw insults

It's candy coated crap, yeah.

@ShadowTheCoffeeWizard who was the other one?

@Magisch dunno, didn't bother to check.

@ShadowTheCoffeeWizard Any specific reason? Or just in the general wake of things

24 hours ago, by Olivia

I'm suspecting there's a second mod that has left (or he's at least considerably less visibly active, and has been since July)

Ask @Princess :)

oh, reason? The clash with users

Users don't like the changes, and blame the mod team.

e.g. now I saw newsletter became "digest" (???????) so I blame @Tink. ;)

12:36 PM

Seems like we'll have mod elections soon then

sigh

it's gonna be an unmitigated crapfest if we have mod elections in the current climate on mso

@Magisch This presumes anyone wants to run

meh, there are still enough mods

@Mgetz there are plenty of people willing to run not on MSO

Think some people here will be willing to do that.

cough @Bart cough

Worst case, Smokey can run for mod on SO. :D

He's awesome with nuking spam! :P

@ShadowTheCoffeeWizard then we would need to create an ai training bot for smokey called 'Bandit'

12:38 PM

That said, I'm interested to find out what effect the meta kerfuffle will have on candidate turnout

I predict the crapstorm will be in comments and general surrounding discussion, though

@Mgetz there was actual AI bot posting replies on SO in the past.

410

@Magisch This looks like a drop of activity

I wonder if now is the time to break my "most concurrently pending flags" personal record

@410 Bart's twin?! I'd never have guessed. :(

@ShadowTheCoffeeWizard Yes but did they use a pontiac firebird logo as their user image?

12:40 PM

Well, many mods have nearly zero visible activity on smaller sites.

@Mgetz nah

410

"Overall changes in design will not be made at this moment." Well, thanks for at least letting us know where you stand on that. I guess I can stop holding my breath for the Stack Overflow that I knew and loved to return. This isn't the site that I joined, helped build, and loved for so many years. It's no longer a site that I am proud to be associated with. I have recommended that my coworkers and others stop using it until such time as you decide to re-deploy a site that I am no longer ashamed to be associated with, one that does not hide content behind a paywall or ad banner. — Cody Gray ♦ Jun 29 at 0:35

Joey Dorrani, USA

321 1 1

That's the bot ^

@410 Paywall or adbanner!?

(one of its accounts, there were more)

@Mgetz How do you suggest to call that giant ugly thing on the front page for unregistered users?

12:44 PM

Yeah SE push us to use Teams; Teams cost money; Hence, paywall.

Aight, we should curb the speculation a bit out of respect for cody

@JohnDvorak yeah I had to open it up in a browser I don't have adblock and in a private window to see it

Gone are the days I would consider disabling adblock on SE

glad to hear that adblock kills that thing

@JohnDvorak don't actually know, let me check