I experienced this problem today ; my Expo Android app brought this error after playstore updated this app.
I resolved the problem by visiting apkpure.com and downloading Expo Android App of version 2.12 which supports SDK 31.0.0
@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.
@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).
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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...?
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
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.
@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
@JourneymanGeek eh. I think that has to be balanced against the public interest of being able to efficiently utilize resources and benefit from progress
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 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
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?
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 Colorado9 hours ago
@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
"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
Reporting a highly inappropiate ad seen on Academia (and History). No link URL visible without clicking. This ad (or another on the page) also tried to open popups and new browser tabs. Please clean up the ads you serve.
I experienced this problem today ; my Expo Android app brought this error after playstore updated this app.
I resolved the problem by visiting apkpure.com and downloading Expo Android App of version 2.12 which supports SDK 31.0.0
Reporting a highly inappropiate ad seen on Academia (and History). No link URL visible without clicking. This ad (or another on the page) also tried to open popups and new browser tabs. Please clean up the ads you serve.
