Timeline for Do Stack Exchange’s ToS mean that the user-generated content is double-licensed to them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2020 at 14:47 | comment | added | E.P. | The language at issue (which was thankfully eliminated in May 2018) does not just cover Stack Exchange: it allows SE "to allow others" to distribute and modify the content. It's unclear what the implications of that language are. | |
| Mar 5, 2020 at 20:47 | comment | added | E.P. | Linked to from here on the Mother Meta. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 16:07 | comment | added | Glenn Randers-Pehrson | On top of all that, the user may have granted an additional license. See my user profile, for instance, which says, "LICENSE: All my StackExchange contributions across all sites, except as noted within any particular contribution, are available under the standard SO/SE licensing terms (CC-BY-SA) or under the CC-0 Public Domain Dedication, at your choice." | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 13:36 | history | edited | RubberDuck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Jul 2, 2017 at 13:25 | comment | added | RubberDuck | Correct, you've granted the right to those "others", but only so far as needed for SE to provide the site itself. Those "others" can't just run off and profit on your work. It provides SE enough flexibility to safely run the site, that's all. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 13:23 | comment | added | unor | I see, thanks. -- "Likewise, they cannot allow anyone else to do this": With the quoted others I was referring to the statement in their second license: "to allow others to do so in any medium" (but, if I understand it correctly, these "others" have to help providing "the Services"). | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 13:16 | comment | added | RubberDuck | In other words, when it comes to copyright, if there is no explicit licensing of the ability to do something with a copyrighted work, it is assumed that nothing can be done with it. The simplest example is a copyrighted work published without a license. No license == All rights reserved. That's just the most extreme case of there being no specific grant of license. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 13:11 | comment | added | RubberDuck | Well, no. Copyright and Contract law both favor the original owner where there is no explicit language in the contract (in this case, the ToS). They couldn't publish your work without attributing you, because you've not explicitly granted them the right to do so. Likewise, they cannot allow anyone else to do this because you've not conferred the right for Stack Exchange to sublicense to others the additional rights granted to SE in the ToS. Everyone else is entirely bound to the Creative Commons license. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 12:52 | comment | added | unor | Thanks for your answer:) That would mean SE (if they use the second license) could 1) publish my work without attributing me and 2) allow "others" to publish my work without attributing me and use it without any kind of copyleft. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 12:30 | history | answered | RubberDuck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |