Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the 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.
Post History
If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA1 after each hits 50th year age. The go...
#7: Post edited
by
Canina
·
2020-08-25T16:14:49Z (about 4 years ago)
add license tag for categorization
#6: Post edited
by
. .
·
2020-08-25T14:16:30Z (about 4 years ago)
shrink to a linear post history for simplicity
- If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup> after each hits 50th year age.
- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- ---
- > One major problem with changing the license on a post after the fact is that it affects not just the original contribution, but also every *change* to that post made by others; [...]
- >
- > [...]
- When broadening the license of every revision of a post at once (strong, complex, composite). Not when broadening the license of a single revision (weak, simple, atomic).
- > [...]
- >
- > This is a reason why many open-source projects, for example, are stuck with the license they originally picked; the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer or otherwise a license from contributors that would allow them to *change* the license, so in order to change the license, they would need to *rewrite* all code where they can't get license change approval retroactively. For a large project, even *identifying* this code can be a mammoth task.
- >
- > [...]
- Nailed the golden nugget "the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer". Thank you very much for contributing the key past evidence while concisely formulating the essence supporting the cause. Here is certainly asking precisely for the appropriate devices for giving "license change approvals" retroactively and for foreseeable futures.
- > [...]
- >
- > In the scenario you describe, what happens to all the changes people contributed to that post over five decades while it was, and their changes were contributed, under CC-BY-NC-SA? [...]
- >
- > [...]
Nothing immediate. Initial revision has been broadened to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup>, potentially triggering actions of others on their subsequent revision contributions, depending on their choices (if any at all) on the same or similar optional facility.<sub>1: If that's a valid step, which am assuming it probably is and if isn't can probably be fixed by CC in the future.</sub>
- If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup> after each hits 50th year age.
- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- ---
- > One major problem with changing the license on a post after the fact is that it affects not just the original contribution, but also every *change* to that post made by others; [...]
- >
- > [...]
- When broadening the license of every revision of a post at once (strong, complex, composite). Not when broadening the license of a single revision (weak, simple, atomic).
- > [...]
- >
- > This is a reason why many open-source projects, for example, are stuck with the license they originally picked; the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer or otherwise a license from contributors that would allow them to *change* the license, so in order to change the license, they would need to *rewrite* all code where they can't get license change approval retroactively. For a large project, even *identifying* this code can be a mammoth task.
- >
- > [...]
- Nailed the golden nugget "the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer". Thank you very much for contributing the key past evidence while concisely formulating the essence supporting the cause. Here is certainly asking precisely for the appropriate devices for giving "license change approvals" retroactively and for foreseeable futures.
- > [...]
- >
- > In the scenario you describe, what happens to all the changes people contributed to that post over five decades while it was, and their changes were contributed, under CC-BY-NC-SA? [...]
- >
- > [...]
- Nothing immediate. Initial revision has been broadened to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup>, potentially triggering an action of another contributor who authored the subsequent revision contribution in that post, depending on the choices (if any at all) made by that subsequent author on the same or similar optional facility.
- <sub>1: If that's a valid step, which am assuming it probably is and if isn't can probably be fixed by CC in the future.</sub>
#5: Post edited
by
. .
·
2020-08-25T14:02:54Z (about 4 years ago)
reuse note
If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA after each hits 50th year age.- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- ---
- > One major problem with changing the license on a post after the fact is that it affects not just the original contribution, but also every *change* to that post made by others; [...]
- >
- > [...]
- When broadening the license of every revision of a post at once (strong, complex, composite). Not when broadening the license of a single revision (weak, simple, atomic).
- > [...]
- >
- > This is a reason why many open-source projects, for example, are stuck with the license they originally picked; the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer or otherwise a license from contributors that would allow them to *change* the license, so in order to change the license, they would need to *rewrite* all code where they can't get license change approval retroactively. For a large project, even *identifying* this code can be a mammoth task.
- >
- > [...]
- Nailed the golden nugget "the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer". Thank you very much for contributing the key past evidence while concisely formulating the essence supporting the cause. Here is certainly asking precisely for the appropriate devices for giving "license change approvals" retroactively and for foreseeable futures.
- > [...]
- >
- > In the scenario you describe, what happens to all the changes people contributed to that post over five decades while it was, and their changes were contributed, under CC-BY-NC-SA? [...]
- >
- > [...]
- Nothing immediate. Initial revision has been broadened to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup>, potentially triggering actions of others on their subsequent revision contributions, depending on their choices (if any at all) on the same or similar optional facility.
- <sub>1: If that's a valid step, which am assuming it probably is and if isn't can probably be fixed by CC in the future.</sub>
- If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup> after each hits 50th year age.
- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- ---
- > One major problem with changing the license on a post after the fact is that it affects not just the original contribution, but also every *change* to that post made by others; [...]
- >
- > [...]
- When broadening the license of every revision of a post at once (strong, complex, composite). Not when broadening the license of a single revision (weak, simple, atomic).
- > [...]
- >
- > This is a reason why many open-source projects, for example, are stuck with the license they originally picked; the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer or otherwise a license from contributors that would allow them to *change* the license, so in order to change the license, they would need to *rewrite* all code where they can't get license change approval retroactively. For a large project, even *identifying* this code can be a mammoth task.
- >
- > [...]
- Nailed the golden nugget "the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer". Thank you very much for contributing the key past evidence while concisely formulating the essence supporting the cause. Here is certainly asking precisely for the appropriate devices for giving "license change approvals" retroactively and for foreseeable futures.
- > [...]
- >
- > In the scenario you describe, what happens to all the changes people contributed to that post over five decades while it was, and their changes were contributed, under CC-BY-NC-SA? [...]
- >
- > [...]
- Nothing immediate. Initial revision has been broadened to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup>, potentially triggering actions of others on their subsequent revision contributions, depending on their choices (if any at all) on the same or similar optional facility.
- <sub>1: If that's a valid step, which am assuming it probably is and if isn't can probably be fixed by CC in the future.</sub>
#4: Post edited
by
. .
·
2020-08-25T13:50:07Z (about 4 years ago)
edit
- If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA after each hits 50th year age.
- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- ---
- > One major problem with changing the license on a post after the fact is that it affects not just the original contribution, but also every *change* to that post made by others; [...]
- >
- > [...]
- When broadening the license of every revision of a post at once (strong, complex, composite). Not when broadening the license of a single revision (weak, simple, atomic).
- > [...]
- >
- > This is a reason why many open-source projects, for example, are stuck with the license they originally picked; the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer or otherwise a license from contributors that would allow them to *change* the license, so in order to change the license, they would need to *rewrite* all code where they can't get license change approval retroactively. For a large project, even *identifying* this code can be a mammoth task.
- >
- > [...]
Quote "the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer" bit is gold. Thank you very much for contributing evidence supporting the cause. :)- > [...]
- >
- > In the scenario you describe, what happens to all the changes people contributed to that post over five decades while it was, and their changes were contributed, under CC-BY-NC-SA? [...]
- >
- > [...]
Nothing. Initial revision has been broadened to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup>, potentially triggering actions of others on their subsequent revision contributions, depending on their choices (if any at all) on the same or similar optional facility.- <sub>1: If that's a valid step, which am assuming it probably is and if isn't can probably be fixed by CC in the future.</sub>
- If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA after each hits 50th year age.
- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- ---
- > One major problem with changing the license on a post after the fact is that it affects not just the original contribution, but also every *change* to that post made by others; [...]
- >
- > [...]
- When broadening the license of every revision of a post at once (strong, complex, composite). Not when broadening the license of a single revision (weak, simple, atomic).
- > [...]
- >
- > This is a reason why many open-source projects, for example, are stuck with the license they originally picked; the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer or otherwise a license from contributors that would allow them to *change* the license, so in order to change the license, they would need to *rewrite* all code where they can't get license change approval retroactively. For a large project, even *identifying* this code can be a mammoth task.
- >
- > [...]
- Nailed the golden nugget "the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer". Thank you very much for contributing the key past evidence while concisely formulating the essence supporting the cause. Here is certainly asking precisely for the appropriate devices for giving "license change approvals" retroactively and for foreseeable futures.
- > [...]
- >
- > In the scenario you describe, what happens to all the changes people contributed to that post over five decades while it was, and their changes were contributed, under CC-BY-NC-SA? [...]
- >
- > [...]
- Nothing immediate. Initial revision has been broadened to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup>, potentially triggering actions of others on their subsequent revision contributions, depending on their choices (if any at all) on the same or similar optional facility.
- <sub>1: If that's a valid step, which am assuming it probably is and if isn't can probably be fixed by CC in the future.</sub>
#3: Post edited
by
. .
·
2020-08-25T07:54:59Z (about 4 years ago)
soon for a feature request
#2: Post edited
by
. .
·
2020-08-25T07:53:50Z (about 4 years ago)
answer the answer
- If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA after each hits 50th year age.
- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA after each hits 50th year age.
- The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause.
- \</crank moment>
- ---
- > One major problem with changing the license on a post after the fact is that it affects not just the original contribution, but also every *change* to that post made by others; [...]
- >
- > [...]
- When broadening the license of every revision of a post at once (strong, complex, composite). Not when broadening the license of a single revision (weak, simple, atomic).
- > [...]
- >
- > This is a reason why many open-source projects, for example, are stuck with the license they originally picked; the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer or otherwise a license from contributors that would allow them to *change* the license, so in order to change the license, they would need to *rewrite* all code where they can't get license change approval retroactively. For a large project, even *identifying* this code can be a mammoth task.
- >
- > [...]
- Quote "the people behind the project didn't bother to get a copyright transfer" bit is gold. Thank you very much for contributing evidence supporting the cause. :)
- > [...]
- >
- > In the scenario you describe, what happens to all the changes people contributed to that post over five decades while it was, and their changes were contributed, under CC-BY-NC-SA? [...]
- >
- > [...]
- Nothing. Initial revision has been broadened to CC BY SA<sup>1</sup>, potentially triggering actions of others on their subsequent revision contributions, depending on their choices (if any at all) on the same or similar optional facility.
- <sub>1: If that's a valid step, which am assuming it probably is and if isn't can probably be fixed by CC in the future.</sub>
#1: Initial revision
by
. .
·
2020-08-24T23:21:51Z (about 4 years ago)
auto re licensing
If this had a feature where one could set triggers for stuff, I'd use it to set up a trigger that re licenses all and each of my CC BY NC SA stuff to CC BY SA after each hits 50th year age. The good part is I have more than 49 years to lobby for this cause. \</crank moment>