Timeline for Creative Commons Licensing UI and Data Updates
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 13:53 | history | edited | Yaakov Ellis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
completed
|
| May 13, 2020 at 17:50 | comment | added | StackOverthrow | @ChristianRau The common sense reason for being in control of upgrading your license is that some future version might introduce a clause you don't like. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 22:13 | comment | added | Yaakov Ellis | We're going to be looking at this again to confirm this approach. Just wanted to update about that here. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 22:12 | history | edited | Yaakov Ellis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
status-review
|
| May 12, 2020 at 21:17 | comment | added | 1201ProgramAlarm | Would you expect that a post that is vandalized, then has that edit rolled back (to remove the vandalism), would have its license changed? I think of a rollback as an undo of an edit, and since there needs to be tracking the revision number gets updated. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 13:19 | comment | added | ChrisW | The version before it was rolled back still exists -- in the history. E.g. version 1 is old license, version 2 is new license, rollback to version 1 is old license again -- but version 2 still exists. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 12:02 | comment | added | Yaakov Ellis | The current revision is a new revision as far as our meta-data on the post goes, tracking all of the things that happened in the post's history. But content-wise, it introduces nothing new. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 11:57 | comment | added | Christian Rau | @YaakovEllis But that current revision is technically a new revision, it has a new revision number and is treated like its own revision, even though it has an older revision's content. Is that not enough to make it count as a new revision on paper? | |
| May 12, 2020 at 11:55 | comment | added | Yaakov Ellis |
The current license on the post is really the license on the revision that is currently the revision of record on the post. So if you rollback to an older version, and that older version is now what is displayed as the version of record on the post, the license that applies to that older version is now the one that applies to the post (ie: to the content of the post that is currently being displayed). Fix for this edge case is currently pending review (so if you test it right now, it will just use the LastEditDate to determine the license.
|
|
| May 12, 2020 at 10:25 | comment | added | curiousdannii | The CC licenses don't let you upgrade the license version without making non-trivial changes to the content. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 10:10 | comment | added | tripleee | On the other hand, unilaterally changing the license of content I posted without my involvement shouldn't be too easy either -- remember, that's how we ended up here in the first place. There are trolls on both sides, and we don't want to give either an advantage. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 9:43 | comment | added | Christian Rau | Rollbacks simply shouldn't downgrade so that anti-editing trolls get the rug pulled under their feet and can't pretend to want to "preserve their license". There is zero common sense reason not to upgrade your content's license to 3.0 or 4.0, other than trying to play authority games. | |
| May 12, 2020 at 9:40 | comment | added | tripleee | All answers are equally bad. As a producer of content, if I submitted an answer at CC-BY-SA-3.0 and the contents have not effectively changed, it should remain at that version, shouldn't it? On the other hand, as a consumer, it would be quite bewildering to copy some code, then discover that the license has changed to an earlier version of the license when I revisit the link (though it should be possible to figure out what happened if you have enough time and don't panic). | |
| May 12, 2020 at 9:26 | history | answered | Christian Rau | CC BY-SA 4.0 |