Timeline for Problematic phrasing of Stack Exchange terms of service
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:10 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Nov 29, 2013 at 6:14 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | Thanks! There's still a technicality, though: the revised wording lets you use your own content elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to let you authorize other people to do so. (For example, even if you explicitly place an answer in the public domain, it would be a TOS violation for someone else to use it without following the CC BY-SA attribution rules. Copyright law would have no problem with this reuse, but the terms of service impose additional restrictions.) | |
| Nov 26, 2013 at 20:06 | history | edited | JaydlesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added update.
|
| Oct 28, 2013 at 16:02 | history | edited | JaydlesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added edit.
|
| Oct 28, 2013 at 16:01 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @FedericoPoloni, I hear you. To be clear, I'm using it because we don't intend it to mean that. More importantly, we're now actively looking into how to remove or edit that line to eliminate this concern. | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 15:55 | comment | added | TRiG | Indeed, the language could be read that way, and in fact I struggle to see any other way to read it. | |
| Oct 14, 2013 at 10:16 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | That word "could" you keep using looks like cover-your-ass legalese to me. I don't see any other possible interpretation of that paragraph. So, in case our answers get into the records somehow, as a user of the site my answer to your clarification request is: no, the issue is not that the language could be read in that way; it is that the paragraph means exactly what is written in it, and we users find that overly restrictive. | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 14:26 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | Yes, this is merely a documentation bug where the text could be interpreted differently than intended. | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 14:16 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | Yes, and the related issue of whether you can authorize other users to use your content under a more permissive license. (Of course you must license it under CC BY-SA as well, but that's not an exclusive license.) Thanks! | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 13:59 | history | answered | JaydlesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |