42

Stack Exchange changed the license in September. That would be fine, when all posts previously written and granted rights to SE by users had stayed with their old license. But they did not. SE decided that the licence you granted them is not the license they wanted and decided that meant that you had indeed granted them a different license. Just for ...


22

TL;DR Let's, for once, prioritise individual contributors over the collective. Our interests, as a community, are different from the direction SE is taking. It's just the way things are going in the last few months. SE Corp's interest is to protect the content. It stays on their site and google results. Individuals come and go. SE gets contributions for ...


21

I have contacted the powers at be at SE to see how to handle this. I don't have an answer at the moment and as you most likely know, I am not a lawyer. I will elaborate on this a bit though and say that I will not delete your answers for you. You may want to review this: Legal Info from SE And this answer from Thomas Owens on this post. Related Post ...


15

Just to add my two cents: I follow Mister Positive in this, in the sense that we will not entertain requests for deletion of content. Any self deletions or defacing of posts will be reversed as SOP for moderators when site contributions are vandalised or defaced. Our mandate as moderators is clear in that regard. This is entirely separate from my personal ...


11

I sympathize with the point of view regarding the Creative Commons licensing change, but legal issues are not the responsibility of the volunteer moderator team. Please take issues like this up with the Stack Exchange company instead, as others have, and if you do have the legal right to remove your content from the network, they can do it for you.


11

I understand your frustration. Yes, I agree switching to a new license without consent is not nice. No objection on that. However, in reality nothing has changed. The license has changed, but you aren't trying to make profits from your writing anyway. You have absolutely nothing to lose. This is a Q&A site, we ask or answer, that's what we care. As long ...


8

I've reviewed the edit logs Gregory's top 10 answers by votes and it clearly appears that he no longer wishes for his answers to be available under the current license regardless of internet points. He has made every effort to delete his answers as is permissible to him as a user by actually deleting the answer; he could not delete accepted answers and ...


7

Any person who rollbacks such edit is a partner in copyright infringement with Stack Exchange. Before rolling back such an edit make sure you know the support that SE is willing to give you in the unlikely event that you get sued by the original poster for copyright infringement. Same applies to undeletion of answers or questions. Some may disagree, of ...


4

If I were to take a guess, my assumption would be along the same lines as the answer above https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6494/113825. It's likely that Gregory wanted to delete his answers, however was unable to as they are "accepted". Also, I believe there is a limit to how many questions you can delete per day and maybe he hit that limit. It'...


1

Pyrotechnical's answer already covers why people are unhappy with the change, which is mostly unrelated to the new license itself and more to do with how SE announced the change of license on existing content. As for the changes themselves, Tim Post's announcement of the change on MSE directs people to this blog post on creativecommons.org for a summary of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible