Return to Answer

Thank you for this. I'm glad this happened.

I still have concerns about how edits are handled, though. I find it odd that any edit - even the most minor ones - can cause a change in the license. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can take a CC BY-SA 2.5 or 3.0 post, fix one spelling mistake, and then release that under CC BY-SA 4.0.

I'm now OK with edits triggering a license upgrade between versions of a CC BY-SA license. At least in CC BY-SA 3.0, An adaptation can be released under "a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License". Personally, I think it may be a stretch to consider the most minor edits an adaptation or derivative work, but there are also technological limitations if you tried to consider significance of edits.

I do hope that you allow a bulk upgrade of the license. Now that the concerns around the licensing have been resolved, I'd like to be able to make all of my content 4.0 and make sure that it is labeled as such.

status-review

I would also suggest including the license information outside of the timeline. I think it should be visible on questions and answers, but perhaps it would be ok in the hover text around the attribution would be a good place, similar to how it is in the tooltip for the comment date. Also consider CC REL in the HTML markup for the page - this does support multiple licenses on the page and may provide hints to search engines and browsers as well.

Thank you for this. I'm glad this happened.

I still have concerns about how edits are handled, though. I find it odd that any edit - even the most minor ones - can cause a change in the license. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can take a CC BY-SA 2.5 or 3.0 post, fix one spelling mistake, and then release that under CC BY-SA 4.0.

I'm now OK with edits triggering a license upgrade between versions of a CC BY-SA license. At least in CC BY-SA 3.0, An adaptation can be released under "a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License". Personally, I think it may be a stretch to consider the most minor edits an adaptation or derivative work, but there are also technological limitations if you tried to consider significance of edits.

I do hope that you allow a bulk upgrade of the license. Now that the concerns around the licensing have been resolved, I'd like to be able to make all of my content 4.0 and make sure that it is labeled as such.

status-completed

You can now see the license version number on the share popover

I would also suggest including the license information outside of the timeline. I think it should be visible on questions and answers, but perhaps it would be ok in the hover text around the attribution would be a good place, similar to how it is in the tooltip for the comment date. Also consider CC REL in the HTML markup for the page - this does support multiple licenses on the page and may provide hints to search engines and browsers as well.

Thank you for this. I'm glad this happened.

I still have concerns about how edits are handled, though. I find it odd that any edit - even the most minor ones - can cause a change in the license. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can take a CC BY-SA 2.5 or 3.0 post, fix one spelling mistake, and then release that under CC BY-SA 4.0.

I'm now OK with edits triggering a license upgrade between versions of a CC BY-SA license. At least in CC BY-SA 3.0, An adaptation can be released under "a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License". Personally, I think it may be a stretch to consider the most minor edits an adaptation or derivative work, but there are also technological limitations if you tried to consider significance of edits.

I do hope that you allow a bulk upgrade of the license. Now that the concerns around the licensing have been resolved, I'd like to be able to make all of my content 4.0 and make sure that it is labeled as such.

I would also suggest including the license information outside of the timeline. I think it should be visible on questions and answers, but perhaps it would be ok in the hover text around the attribution would be a good place, similar to how it is in the tooltip for the comment date. Also consider CC REL in the HTML markup for the page - this does support multiple licenses on the page and may provide hints to search engines and browsers as well.

Thank you for this. I'm glad this happened.

I still have concerns about how edits are handled, though. I find it odd that any edit - even the most minor ones - can cause a change in the license. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can take a CC BY-SA 2.5 or 3.0 post, fix one spelling mistake, and then release that under CC BY-SA 4.0.

I'm now OK with edits triggering a license upgrade between versions of a CC BY-SA license. At least in CC BY-SA 3.0, An adaptation can be released under "a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License". Personally, I think it may be a stretch to consider the most minor edits an adaptation or derivative work, but there are also technological limitations if you tried to consider significance of edits.

I do hope that you allow a bulk upgrade of the license. Now that the concerns around the licensing have been resolved, I'd like to be able to make all of my content 4.0 and make sure that it is labeled as such.

status-review

I would also suggest including the license information outside of the timeline. I think it should be visible on questions and answers, but perhaps it would be ok in the hover text around the attribution would be a good place, similar to how it is in the tooltip for the comment date. Also consider CC REL in the HTML markup for the page - this does support multiple licenses on the page and may provide hints to search engines and browsers as well.

Thank you for this. I'm glad this happened.

I still have concerns about how edits are handled, though. I find it odd that any edit - even the most minor ones - can cause a change in the license. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can take a CC BY-SA 2.5 or 3.0 post, fix one spelling mistake, and then release that under CC BY-SA 4.0.

I do hope that you allow a bulk upgrade of the license. Now that the concerns around the licensing have been resolved, I'd like to be able to make all of my content 4.0 and make sure that it is labeled as such.

I would also suggest including the license information outside of the timeline. I think it should be visible on questions and answers, but perhaps it would be ok in the hover text around the attribution would be a good place, similar to how it is in the tooltip for the comment date. Also consider CC REL in the HTML markup for the page - this does support multiple licenses on the page and may provide hints to search engines and browsers as well.

Thank you for this. I'm glad this happened.

I still have concerns about how edits are handled, though. I find it odd that any edit - even the most minor ones - can cause a change in the license. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can take a CC BY-SA 2.5 or 3.0 post, fix one spelling mistake, and then release that under CC BY-SA 4.0.

I'm now OK with edits triggering a license upgrade between versions of a CC BY-SA license. At least in CC BY-SA 3.0, An adaptation can be released under "a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License". Personally, I think it may be a stretch to consider the most minor edits an adaptation or derivative work, but there are also technological limitations if you tried to consider significance of edits.

I do hope that you allow a bulk upgrade of the license. Now that the concerns around the licensing have been resolved, I'd like to be able to make all of my content 4.0 and make sure that it is labeled as such.

I would also suggest including the license information outside of the timeline. I think it should be visible on questions and answers, but perhaps it would be ok in the hover text around the attribution would be a good place, similar to how it is in the tooltip for the comment date. Also consider CC REL in the HTML markup for the page - this does support multiple licenses on the page and may provide hints to search engines and browsers as well.