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

Dashboard
Notifications
Mark all as read
Q&A

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.

CC BY-SA 3.0 license doesn't show

+1
−0

license

my license

Why CC BY-SA 3.0 license don't show for me? I had asked a question in Physics Codidact. I had answered the question but, it was taken from someone else's answer(from Physics SE). So, I had decided to add CC BY-SA 3.0 license when I had seen in another answer. Unfortunately, I didn't find anywhere. I had visited my default license also. There was no 3.0 license.

default license

Why it is happening? Is the feature gone? Or, I am missing something, ain't I?

In this Scientific Speculation question, an user used CC 3.0 license. But, when I tried to create a post with that license (Just testing). I saw the license doesn't exist anymore.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment

Worth mentioning that on some sites the CC BY-SA 3.0 license appears (but with obviously wrong explanation wording), while on others it doesn't, so could be a bug? Mithrandir24601‭ 26 days ago

1 answer

+3
−0

The imported post is CC BY-SA 3.0 because that's how the source (Stack Exchange) licensed it. That notice reports a license.

The list of licenses you can choose when posting here is unrelated. That list is configurable (per-community), so if people want 3.0 to be an option we can add it. So far, the feeling has been that 4.0 is better than 3.0; I haven't heard of anybody explicitly wanting 3.0 over 4.0 yet. But if someone does, we can add it.

You might be remembering the outcry on Stack Overflow (Stack Exchange) when they changed to 4.0. The issue there wasn't the content of 4.0; it was how the company made the change. Initially they simply declared that everything that had been contributed under 3.0 was now 4.0, which was a violation of the 3.0 license. People did not appreciate having the terms of their contributions changed out from under them without their consent, so there was an outcry when the change became known. Something like a year and a half after they made the change, they fixed it to restore the original license to already-existing content, applying the new license only to new posts.

Codidact lets the author choose the license from the start; we don't think we should be changing terms on people. For similar reasons, we don't allow people to change the license after posting; content, once offered under certain terms, shouldn't be changed to a more restrictive license. We could, in principle, say that you can move from a less permissive license to a more permissive one, but that places us in the position of having to make those evaluations. As soon as a community has, say, CC and GPL both in play, that gets harder. We don't want to be the arbiters of legally-binding matters; we want to get out of the way and allow authors and communities to control their content licenses.

When you use other people's work in your posts here, you should follow our quoting and attribution guidelines regardless of where the content came from -- SE, Wikipedia, somebody's blog, or wherever else.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comments

so if people want 3.0 to be an option we can add it. I don't want it. Unfortunately, I didn't want it in Codidact Meta or, any other Meta site also. But, it doesn't appear in Physics Codidact. I am not sure if it is only happening for me. Istiak‭ 26 days ago

Why do you need it on Physics? Do you want to create content with CC 3.0 there? If so, please make a request on Physics meta and we can add it there. I'm still not sure why you want it, but you can explain it there. We don't need 3.0 here to support using 3.0 content from elsewhere; we just need to comply with that license, which means attributing and linking. Monica Cellio‭ 26 days ago

Sign up to answer this question »

This community is part of the Codidact network. We have other communities too — take a look!

You can also join us in chat!

Want to advertise this community? Use our templates!