Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the "town hall" (meta-discussion site) for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Do we have or need licences for comments?

Post

Do we have or need licences for comments?

+3
−0

A post has a licence, which is the default unless the post author chooses a different one. This makes it clear to anyone reusing the content of the post what their rights and responsibilities are.

A comment does not display a licence, and has no option for a commenter to choose one. Do we have a policy somewhere that indicates what licence applies to comments?

Should comments have a licence? If so, should this be a single licence covering all comments, or should there be the option of overriding to a different licence for some communities, or categories, or per user or per comment?

History

1 comment thread

ToS implied license (2 comments)
ToS implied license
Moshi‭ wrote about 1 month ago

From the Terms of Service,

If you sign up for an account, you will be able to submit questions, answers, comments, and other types of posts, some of which may include images, video, or other media (collectively, "User-Generated Content" or "Content").

By posting here, you license any such Content under the terms of one of (in increasing order of precedence) (a) the site default license at the time of creating your post; (b) the license of the category in which you post, or (c) the license you choose from the available list at the time of creating your post — the "Applicable License".

Emphasis my own.

IANAL, but I believe these sections imply that comments do fall under the same rule as other "User-Generated Content". This implies that, given (c) does not currently exist for comments, comments would fall under (a) or (b): the default license of the category or site.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 1 month ago

I wonder if there's a more explicit way to word this (and whether it should be indicated at the top of a comment thread to avoid ambiguity).

For the author of a post, it might seem reasonable to assume that (c) indicates their comments will be under the same license as they chose (actively or passively) for the post the comment thread is under. It might also seem reasonable to assume that (b) indicates that the license of the category applies since the comment did not have a choice made.