Timeline for Announcing a change to the data-dump process
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
127 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2024 at 20:24 | history | edited | PhilippeStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 29, 2024 at 17:11 | history | edited | BertholdStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Update with link to new post about changes and updates
|
| Aug 25, 2024 at 8:39 | comment | added | Basic | So... Still trying to gatekeep and charge for our work? | |
| Aug 16, 2024 at 15:52 | comment | added | Michael come lately | @l4mpi "anyone who knows what they are doing can download the file without checking the box" Uh-oh. The CFAA is coming for you! | |
| Aug 16, 2024 at 15:37 | comment | added | zcoop98 | @l4mpi They're not even polling the response server-side; the fact that the approval is so flimsy really calls into question all the effort they went to here. It aligns with my theory that this really was a wildly misguided attempt at a value-add for users... It's unfortunate that the work was put into something so unbelievably unwanted and unnecessary at best, and actively detrimental at worst. | |
| Aug 16, 2024 at 9:59 | comment | added | l4mpi | Not sure if it was calculated that this was updated after it dropped out of the SO "featured on meta" sidebar or if it's just another instance of really bad communication from SE. Anyways, I just tried the new download page and the checkbox with the BS LLM text is basically just cosmetic, anyone who knows what they are doing can download the file without checking the box... that probably makes no difference in practice, but I expected SE to at least enforce acceptance before giving access to the data. | |
| Aug 14, 2024 at 14:06 | history | edited | BertholdStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Update noting release/availability
|
| Aug 13, 2024 at 15:25 | history | edited | SashaStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 13, 2024 at 15:19 | history | edited | SashaStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 8, 2024 at 1:03 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | You are attempting to prevent other parties from building an internet Q&A knowledge base. You are going directly against the founding principles of the network. | |
| Aug 5, 2024 at 20:37 | comment | added | Tim C | "We can't legally make you agree to this rule, but we reserve the right to retaliate if you break it" smells like BS to me. | |
| Aug 5, 2024 at 19:18 | comment | added | CodeGnome | CC BY-SA and CC BY-NC-SA are two different licenses. Setting that license violation aside, the fact that SE currently makes it hard to extract one's own data donated under a CC BY-SA license an unaddressed problem, and should probably address that separately so that copyright holders (e.g. the contributing community) do not have to take formal legal action or jump through administrative hoops to do this. | |
| Aug 3, 2024 at 13:39 | comment | added | allo | The whole idea of data dumps is to give the community the opportunity to do useful things with the data, such as training an LLM. We contribute under a CC license so that others can benefit from our contributions, rather than just providing a company with free content for their Q&A site. | |
| Jul 30, 2024 at 17:12 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | @AMtwo "This year, it's shaping up to be a strike among Answerers" - not sure you can call it a strike if people leave and don't come back. It's the same reason there won't be another mod strike; no one has the energy to do it and deal with negotiations when SE has shown that the strike last year didn't mean anything to them. But if it helps the competition put strain on SE to force a new direction (or serve as a viable alternative if SE continues downhill), it might turn out to be a good thing | |
| Jul 30, 2024 at 13:38 | comment | added | user152859 | @OrangeDog gofundme for whom, though? SE the company itself? | |
| Jul 30, 2024 at 11:43 | answer | added | ColleenV | timeline score: 39 | |
| Jul 30, 2024 at 10:14 | answer | added | Marian Spanik | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jul 29, 2024 at 23:12 | comment | added | Ismael Miguel | @Polygnome According to this post, the content isn't yours, the license is a load of suggestions and the data can be sold to LLMs if you request it. | |
| Jul 29, 2024 at 12:06 | comment | added | Someone | "Many users have found that language to be unnecessarily bureaucratic and difficult to parse and understand" - No. This was never the problem, and to imply it was us failing to understand it is insulting. It's not difficult to understand, it's perfectly clear that it violates the CC-BY-SA license, and that's what people are telling you. | |
| Jul 29, 2024 at 9:44 | comment | added | OrangeDog | I see you haven't hired better lawyers since the last time they signed off on something illegal that caused the company to be sued and have to backtrack. Shall we start the class-action gofundme now or only once this has been released? | |
| Jul 29, 2024 at 6:15 | history | edited | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Oops, July! (I blame the heat)
|
| Jul 28, 2024 at 16:16 | comment | added | anon | It's kind of neat that it is going to become a yearly tradition to have a strike among some cohort of people on the site. Last year it was mods.... This year, it's shaping up to be a strike among Answerers. Who doesn't love tradition!?!! | |
| Jul 28, 2024 at 14:34 | history | edited | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
"Today" was June 12, 2024
|
| Jul 27, 2024 at 19:13 | history | edited | cocomac | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Replace bold with markdown heading
|
| Jul 27, 2024 at 12:26 | answer | added | Thomas Owens | timeline score: 35 | |
| Jul 27, 2024 at 4:46 | answer | added | HolyBlackCat | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 21:48 | comment | added | Basic | @Philippe Are you trying to claim with a straight face that you don't have source control and the ability to roll back to a pre-existing process? On *Stack Exchange* of all places? And no, the language wasn't difficult to parse... It's very clear what you're trying to do. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 21:30 | comment | added | Ismael Miguel | I though this was the worst that it would get. Somehow, you made it worse! "Many users have found that language to be unnecessarily bureaucratic and difficult to parse and understand [...]" We understood it: you want to sell what's not yours so be sold. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 21:04 | answer | added | Script47 | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:56 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | @ert That's exactly what their [SE's] meetings are; word-smithing that resolves nothing, but is meant to give the appearance of being useful | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:54 | comment | added | ert | @Philippe What exactly were you doing in this week of meetings? You've come back to us after two weeks with a worse version of what was announced, and a bit of wordsmithing that addresses none of the real concerns raised. And I can't believe you're telling us with a straight face you're unable to give us the dumps in a single dump due to technical reasons... despite already being able to do that. It's not new functionality, it's existing functionality. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:48 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | "First, our product team has regretfully informed us that it will not be possible, within the existing time constraints, to bundle the dumps for a site and its meta together" - so settle for one click giving two links then? Doesn't really matter if it's two separate downloads; having to navigate to two separate sites makes it significantly more difficult to get the entire data dump. But hey, if you want me (and anyone using the downloader I'm writing) to run ~365 concurrent downloads instead of ~180, I'll happily oblige | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:39 | comment | added | user1502910 | @wizzwizz4 I might be inclined to agree with you if the policy changed in a material way (e.g. "we've decided against doing this to you"). As it stands, I just don't see the value of posting a brand new announcement because of a couple of minor changes, and I still disagree with you that the changes invalidate anything on this page. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:31 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | @testing-for-ya These changes are intended to address our concerns. Sure, they don't, but that's kinda irrelevant to this procedural issue. (If they did, then the answers would be invalidated.) Tacking updates onto the end of questions is bad, and tacking updates onto the beginning is worse. The update to the text can't be integrated into the announcement without invalidating answers, so it should be posted separately. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:23 | comment | added | user1502910 | @wizzwizz4 I don't agree that it invalidates any answer, including revision 7 of AMtwo's answer (what exactly has been invalidated there?). Especially because the changes in the question aren't material enough to budge any of the objections. The company hasn't changed what they're doing, or why any of the below answers rightfully question what they're doing. It changes the wording on the tin and clarifies a technical aspect that may have been misconstrued in the original wording of the question. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:22 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | @testing-for-ya Yes: when they change the proposed process, I want a new "here's our New New Process" announcement question, because these updates invalidate the existing answers. Just look at revision 7 of AMtwo's answer. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:20 | comment | added | user1502910 | @wizzwizz4 I don't know about that. They changed the text on the checkbox (to something not really better) and they added a technical detail about file packaging. If they move that information to a different question, it splinters the information, and also takes away all of the answers here that still address the original post even with that change. And then if they make subsequent changes to the wording or the files, you'd want a third question? Then a fourth? IIRC the spirit of chameleon questions is that you don't want a question to change drastically or even 180. That's not happening here. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 19:17 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | @Berthold Can you post your update as a separate question (perhaps moving the featured tag around, as well), please? Chameleon questions are not allowed on Stack Exchange. and the usual procedure – if not for being Official Stack Exchange communication – would be to revert your edit. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 18:16 | comment | added | Jeff Bowman | I appreciate the updated language in the July 26 version, but can you please clarify how the revision is still compatible with clear "no downstream restrictions" Creative Commons language, given that CC doesn't claim to prevent AI training usage? Seems like person A could get the data, host a torrent legally, then person B could download the torrent and train an LLM with it, then the consequences if any would fall on person A (who hasn't broken their agreement with you). Not in the spirit of the CC license. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 18:16 | comment | added | anon | The updated checkbox language is still a clear violation of the CC BY-SA terms. | |
| Jul 26, 2024 at 17:42 | history | edited | BertholdStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
July 26 update
|
| Jul 25, 2024 at 20:37 | answer | added | Basic | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jul 25, 2024 at 20:24 | comment | added | Basic | Bad faith. Stop trying to gatekeep and charge for our work. You're not licensed to do so. | |
| Jul 25, 2024 at 4:16 | answer | added | Hoppeduppeanut | timeline score: 18 | |
| Jul 24, 2024 at 13:22 | comment | added | user1502910 |
@NoDataDumpNoContribution From the announcement: this new process will not be ready until mid-August. So the end of July deadline was already obliterated. I take it to mean the dump will still only include data through June, and I don't think anyone will want to just skip and not bother with this dump and wait until October for the next one.
|
|
| Jul 24, 2024 at 7:46 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | With the delay due to the late legal check, is the end of July deadline still realistic or should the whole change be post-poned by at least one quarter year? | |
| Jul 22, 2024 at 21:57 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | Now I have it. The common way of asking for something without the power to demand it is something like "We would appreciate if ..". Maybe something like this should be used. | |
| S Jul 22, 2024 at 16:25 | history | bounty ended | cocomac | ||
| S Jul 22, 2024 at 16:25 | history | notice removed | cocomac | ||
| Jul 21, 2024 at 22:34 | comment | added | OrangeDog | @AMtwo the last reply was "I'll ask the lawyers", and we all know their answer was "fuck, why do you guys keep announcing your felonies? Do NOT say anything else, we need to cover our arses again". | |
| Jul 21, 2024 at 7:02 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @SteveBennett Afterwards I also found this interpretation but the "We are requesting..." sounded much more like a binding condition. If in fact it was just a plea, the wording should be changed to something like "While you are allowed to do with the data dump as you want within the license restrictions, we would prefer if ..." or similar which would make the message much more clear. Clarity should be the goal. | |
| Jul 21, 2024 at 6:18 | comment | added | Steve Bennett | @NoDataDumpNoContribution I don't think there is any legal problem with that request. The rest of that phrase is "...you consider joining...". It's not a requirement. It's simply "please consider also doing X if you are doing Y". | |
| Jul 20, 2024 at 21:01 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "We are requesting that if you intend to use the dump for a commercial purpose..." Sorry but this is legally incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license, which applies equally to any commercial or non-commercial purpose, I think. Therefore you simply cannot do that. Stop it and consult with your legal department. And please next time, consult with your legal department before. | |
| Jul 20, 2024 at 20:29 | history | edited | wizzwizz4 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I don't like editing official Stack Exchange announcements, but also, images need proper alt text.
|
| Jul 20, 2024 at 16:10 | answer | added | Alexey Vesnin | timeline score: -24 | |
| Jul 19, 2024 at 17:55 | comment | added | anon | At least the company is consistent in the way that they ghost the community if there is negative feedback, rather than responding or even acknowledging the feedback. | |
| Jul 19, 2024 at 7:49 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @AMtwo I would instead point out that there is no real background to claim that "we usually avoid posting on Fridays" since all we get is promises to stop doing that and apologizes that "we know but this is a special case, just this time, trust me bro'" | |
| Jul 19, 2024 at 5:54 | answer | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jul 19, 2024 at 5:42 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Official name of the organization
|
| Jul 18, 2024 at 14:25 | comment | added | anon | Suggested Edit ----> Please note: We usually avoid posting on Fridays, but with Prashanth mentioning it at a conference next week, we wanted to share this information with the community as soon as possible. | |
| Jul 18, 2024 at 8:47 | answer | added | ꓢPArcheon | timeline score: 52 | |
| Jul 17, 2024 at 18:19 | comment | added | Michael come lately | @Nemo, from the post above: "It’s important to say that when you breach the agreement that you make when downloading the dumps file, we do have the option to decline to provide you with future versions of the data dumps." | |
| Jul 17, 2024 at 17:22 | answer | added | bad_coder | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 23:04 | answer | added | zcoop98 | timeline score: 46 | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 21:26 | comment | added | zcoop98 | I just find it very frustrating that yet another company announcement has been marred by PR-speak instead of a seemingly earnest attempt to interact with the community. You seem to have known that this would spark a lot of discontent, especially given the reassurance that you opened the post with– but this whole thing comes across like "creative rebranding"; you're trying to sell us on something that you knew we wouldn't like. I see the dumps as representative of the idea that our content transcends the company– so the company suddenly deciding who gets to use it feels very negative to me. | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 17:20 | answer | added | anon | timeline score: 82 | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 16:19 | comment | added | OrangeDog | @TylerH the promises came after the issues were resolved, not necessarily in those posts | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 16:14 | comment | added | TylerH | @OrangeDog Oh, I didn't realize you posted a different link in each word. Links 2 and 4 are the same. Link 1 is not something that is a promise so can't really speak to it. I agree Link 3 appears to be a lie, given what AMTwo has said on the matter. | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 16:09 | comment | added | OrangeDog | @TylerH and the other three posts I linked? | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 15:53 | comment | added | TylerH | @OrangeDog To be fair 6 months after that post they fixed that issue. | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 9:22 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @SteveBennett Anyone with some knowledge of the dump knows that this misleading announcement makes no sense from a legal and from a technical standpoint. Here is the legal issue: i.sstatic.net/BgSnpezu.png It is not all CC-BY-SA at all, unlike what OP falsely claims. | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 6:16 | comment | added | Steve Bennett | This all sounds completely reasonable. And then I read the detailed responses from the mods who really know what's going on, and mostly I'm just impressed at StackOverflow Inc's ability to write convincing PR. | |
| Jul 16, 2024 at 2:37 | comment | added | Nick Craver | The only way this ends is the community uploading all CC-BY-SA content to the Internet Archive anyway, this process only creates anger and frustration for all involved. So why do this? The content was explicitly CC-BY-SA from the start to prevent exactly this sort of plan from being effective. Moves like this make me deeply sad. This isn't what Stack was built to be. | |
| Jul 15, 2024 at 20:35 | comment | added | anon | @doesnotconsenttogenAI This is totally just "take two" on the last attempt to end the data dump. And even though they've been "working on it" for over a year, they somehow still have to delay posting the data dump. | |
| S Jul 15, 2024 at 19:06 | history | bounty started | cocomac | ||
| S Jul 15, 2024 at 19:06 | history | notice added | cocomac | Draw attention | |
| Jul 15, 2024 at 18:19 | comment | added | Nemo | @Philippe So you're saying that there will be no repercussions for the users who're going to download the dumps and archive them elsewhere? | |
| Jul 15, 2024 at 9:37 | answer | added | Flimm | timeline score: 40 | |
| Jul 15, 2024 at 8:47 | comment | added | l4mpi | @Philippe "My hope is that over time, they see that there's no need, but that will take time, I understand" - that's a very funny thing to say when the SE management always manages to find new ways to make me less and less fond of this company. I thought we hit rock bottom years ago but it somehow manages to get worse, so over time it got more and more important to have an archive that is completely separate from the company. For me, it has reached the point where I feel the best thing that could happen to SE right now would be firing everyone from CEO down to your level immediately. | |
| Jul 15, 2024 at 5:22 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні | @ColleenV something tells me that Meta is heading for the chop in the not-too-distant future. Justifications such as increasingly low participation numbers, creating drama for the sake of it, excessive use and misuse of comments, the site needs to be temporarily closed for a revamp…hmm… inefficient visibility and utility across the network, dispendious use of time, resource and energy, erm… represents but a tiny & insignificant fraction of the community; no longer a safe place for newcomers to ask for help, evident lack of constructive feedback… largely inactive mods… something like that. | |
| Jul 15, 2024 at 0:30 | comment | added | ColleenV | @DanMašek There’s nothing random about this. It is a very calculated attempt to try to have their cake and eat it too. SE seems to think this content belongs to them instead of it being licensed to them. The reality is that SE wouldn’t have worked with any other content scheme. We thought we were creating a library of knowledge for the whole world, not curating a data set for a proprietary AI model owned by a trillion dollar company that is going to charge people to access it. | |
| Jul 15, 2024 at 0:19 | answer | added | wizzwizz4 | timeline score: 65 | |
| Jul 14, 2024 at 18:34 | answer | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | timeline score: 127 | |
| Jul 14, 2024 at 11:47 | comment | added | OrangeDog | Here we go again. Every promise from the company is just a lie, every time. Nobody ever learns. | |
| Jul 14, 2024 at 2:22 | history | edited | Rebecca J. Stones | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link to the "socially responsible AI" blog post
|
| Jul 13, 2024 at 19:18 | comment | added | does not consent to genAI | Note that this appears to be another attempt to try something that went over very poorly with the community a year ago: meta.stackexchange.com/a/390023 | |
| Jul 13, 2024 at 17:14 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | There's no way around it anymore now that you [SE] have pushed this through in spite of internal warnings; you [SE] have made Stack Exchange, Inc. the biggest threat to the sustainability and future of the community. genAI is in second place, because the ongoing damage you [SE] are doing to the community, and to data archival and preservation efforts beats any damage genAI could do by scraping the data. While this hasn't been said anywhere, it's clear to all of us that the only reason you [SE] are doing this isn't to protect the community, but to protect your [SE's] revenue | |
| Jul 13, 2024 at 17:13 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | You [SE] posted this in around a day after posting it to mods, so I didn't have the chance to reply internally. This revision is certainly better than rev. 1 and 2 presented internally, but the omission of a way to download the entire data dump is far too convenient to be accidental. This drastically increases the difficulty of archiving the data dump in its entirety, which makes it harder to preserve the future of the content if the company goes under (or prosus decides to axe the public Q&A, or anything results in the Q&A disappearing from the internet abruptly) | |
| Jul 13, 2024 at 4:49 | comment | added | Ismael Miguel | @samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz The data dumps also protect us from StackOverflow becoming evil, with minimal dataloss, in the case we need to re-publish the content somewhere else (but respecting the CC-BY-SA licenses of each post). So, it not only protects us from what happens to StackOverflow, but also protects us from what StackOverflow becomes. And it is looking very grim... | |
| Jul 13, 2024 at 4:41 | comment | added | Ismael Miguel | In less than a month, you went from "we fixed some community's issues" (and people were hopeful) to "the license to your content is just ignorable suggestions" (and people are, rightfully, not happy). | |
| Jul 13, 2024 at 1:56 | answer | added | curiousdannii | timeline score: 51 | |
| Jul 13, 2024 at 0:42 | comment | added | Maxwell175 | @Philippe so far I am only observing the opposite. It is going to be harder than ever to get this data due to the login requirement and whatever mechanisms you put in place to make it harder to download. SE data dumps are some of the most useful tools for new developers and data scientists to work with. Aggregating data across many sites, running complex queries, ingesting into some database engine. There are thousands of people who rely on this data to learn and do research. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 23:55 | history | edited | cocomac | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Remove extra spaces (feel free to rollback if that was intentional)
|
| Jul 12, 2024 at 23:53 | comment | added | Philippe StaffMod | @Maxwell175, I do, yes. My hope is that over time, they see that there's no need, but that will take time, I understand. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 23:15 | comment | added | Maxwell175 | @Philippe, you do realize that there is nothing you can do to prevent your community from simply maintaining the archive.org mirror for you? I guarantee that the moment the dumps are made available there will be dozens of people immediately downloading them and mirroring them to archive.org. This whole worthless exercise is just a waste of development time. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 23:04 | answer | added | Journeyman Geek | timeline score: 31 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 22:59 | comment | added | Philippe StaffMod | @samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz - in the unlikely event of the asteroid and tsunami double-tap, you'll be pleased to know that we are now harnessing the power of both Azure and Google Cloud for various things, and we are not so silly as to keep all of our backups in the data centers. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 18:56 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 210 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 18:51 | answer | added | Stephen Ostermiller | timeline score: 30 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 18:47 | comment | added | anon | Given that this has been talked about internally since early 2023, and work was only just prioritized to begin ....essentially today. I'm really struggling to understand the importance of not delivering the latest dump to the Internet Archive on schedule while work continues. If it was that important to not post to the Archive anymore, it begs the question as to why work only just started this week after a year of discussion. And further the decision to delay delivery appears arbitrary given lack of explanation. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 18:36 | comment | added | anon | @Philippe I believe an accurate answer to my original question is "SLT & an Engineering Manager have been talking about it for a year. We just brought this to mods a couple weeks ago, then reworked a bunch of stuff and showed them this week. We also informed Devs & started writing code this week." If that is not accurate, please correct me. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 18:04 | comment | added | Philippe StaffMod | @AMtwo - I believe I said that we had had people building the thing before the announcement. That's true. It's no secret that we had a community asks sprint immediately prior to this one, so development of this started during this sprint. So what I said was accurate - and so is what you said. Development just started (this sprint). But I am assured that the timeline is solid. Engineers have said so. Product managers have said so. That's all I can do to assure that what I'm being told is accurate. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 17:59 | comment | added | anon | @Philippe Is there a reason that the company can't meet its previous commitments by posting the Q2 data dump to Archive.org by the end of the month? Something other than the SLT's desire not to? | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 17:58 | comment | added | anon | @Philippe My understanding is that it has been talked about endlessly, but that actual *building of the new delivery mechanism only just started. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 17:50 | comment | added | Philippe StaffMod | @AMtwo - I'm not sure what I can say here to reassure you. I've got several product managers who say we're going to meet this 2 sprint deadline. We've already got people building this thing, and have since before this announcement. It's not a number that I just dreamed up. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 17:25 | answer | added | user6212 | timeline score: 120 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 17:25 | comment | added | anon | @Philippe Can you provide clarity on the status of feature development that led to the "Mid August" availability date? All of us who have worked in software development know how tenuous a 2-sprint estimation is. It could easily be 2 months, instead of 2 sprints, in which case the optimistic availability date will only hurt Stack's relationship with the community further. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 17:14 | answer | added | anon | timeline score: 409 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 16:42 | answer | added | Franck Dernoncourt | timeline score: 134 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 16:35 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @KarlKnechtel I'm not proposing that the data dump is released under two licenses. There's an open question about whether we grant SE two licenses to our content. If so, then it is possible that they can also distribute (commercially exploit) our content under something other than CC BY-SA. That is, if you can access the content via a web browser, you can get it CC BY-SA. However, they can make the same content available via other mechanisms under a non CC BY-SA licenses of their choosing. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 16:32 | answer | added | Starship | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 16:19 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | @ThomasOwens If the data dump is released under two licenses, potential clients get to choose. IANAL but I have seen that this is extremely well established legal principle. They can't escape their self-assigned restrictions and responsibilities under the CC BY-SA license by adding another one. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 15:48 | comment | added | Philippe StaffMod | @samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz - It will not impact them. They can still have access to the dump, as always. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 15:12 | comment | added | user400654 | Do we have a date for v2? or is this just going to be delayed forever because few bother to go through the horribly slow process of requesting help through the contact form. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:38 | answer | added | user152859 | timeline score: 135 | |
| S Jul 12, 2024 at 14:31 | history | suggested | Michael come lately | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Semantic headings.
|
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:29 | comment | added | TylerH | So... why not just post this on Monday, then, if you know you aren't going to be releasing the data dump on July 31st anyway? Or just accept it is late and state that July 31st dump will be the last one under the latest process. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 12, 2024 at 14:31 | |||||
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:13 | comment | added | samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz | Will this change impact stackoverflow.blog/2022/10/20/… ? Will such organisations still be able to distribute the data to people who need it? | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:11 | comment | added | Abdul Aziz Barkat | @ThomasOwens this post very explicitly states "The CC BY-SA license is unchanged." so the dump is not under some other license. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:10 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @AbdulAzizBarkat That depends on how many licenses SE gets. There's some debate over if SE gets our content under one license or two. If they get it under two and one is something other than the CC BY-SA license, then that clause only applies to people who receive it under the CC BY-SA license. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:08 | comment | added | samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz | What happens if an asteroid hits one of your data centres and the other centre is flooded by a subsequent tsunami? A third party host was a nice safeguard for the community to ensure that we will be able to continue accessing the library of knowledge we build - no matter what happens to SO. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 14:03 | answer | added | Thomas Owens | timeline score: 73 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 13:56 | comment | added | Abdul Aziz Barkat | Note that the "I will not transfer it to others without permission from Stack Overflow" does not comply with CC BY-SA 4.0, specifically the "No additional restrictions" part which says "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." specifically the "ShareAlike" clause does not allow that restriction. | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 13:55 | answer | added | goldPseudo | timeline score: 266 | |
| Jul 12, 2024 at 13:38 | history | edited | PhilippeStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 315 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2024 at 13:30 | history | asked | PhilippeStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
