Return to Answer

With regard to licensing alone:

• We have apologized for the fait accompli.

When a moderator has to ask you to sit down for an interview, and has to tell us that himself, that's not an apology. That's an act trying to cover your butt. If you have apologized, by all means, show me and the community where. I certainly haven't seen it.

The "change" is not irreversible. All that has to be done is acknowledge that contributions prior to September 5, 2019 are not and never were released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. That would satisfy the community's concerns over copyright violations (which number to the tens of millions).

• We want to signal our intent to keep up with future changes to CC-BY-SA.

Then write this into the ToS, and never make a change that affects any contributions under anything prior to this change in the ToS. Until then, I am still of the opinion (as are a number of others) that this move was illegal.

• We will create a process and be engaged on licensing issues on Meta.

I am all ears.

I created a post on meta SE where I ask a basic question. This was never answered.
I sent a number of emails to both team and legal at Stack Exchange. None of these were ever answered.
I have pinged community moderators in an attempt to get contact. None were successful.

So please, tell me and the community, what do you classify as "engaged"? You certainly have not done so even under the loosest definition possible.

• We have had hours of meetings on this, and it is a big priority.

 
• We have no intention of moving away from creative commons or paywalling users content in any way.

Good, because moving away from Creative Commons retroactively would be illegal. All you are able to do is say that new content is not available under any FOSS license.

I sincerely hope Stack Exchange answers my numerous attempts at contact, but until then, I am currently in contact with JAMS to see if the arbitration agreement is even valid. I have a little money from a GoFundMe (which is still open), so don't be surprised if you hear from an arbitrator or court of law.

The clock is ticking, Stack Exchange.

With regard to licensing alone:

• We have apologized for the fait accompli.

When a moderator has to ask you to sit down for an interview, and has to tell us that himself, that's not an apology. That's an act trying to cover your butt. If you have apologized, by all means, show me and the community where. I certainly haven't seen it.

The "change" is not irreversible. All that has to be done is acknowledge that contributions prior to September 5, 2019 are not and never were released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. That would satisfy the community's concerns over copyright violations (which number to the tens of millions).

• We want to signal our intent to keep up with future changes to CC-BY-SA.

Then write this into the ToS, and never make a change that affects any contributions under anything prior to this change in the ToS. Until then, I am still of the opinion (as are a number of others) that this move was illegal.

• We will create a process and be engaged on licensing issues on Meta.

I am all ears.

I created a post on meta SE where I ask a basic question. This was never answered.
I sent a number of emails to both team and legal at Stack Exchange. None of these were ever answered.
I have pinged community moderators in an attempt to get contact. None were successful.

So please, tell me and the community, what do you classify as "engaged"? You certainly have not done so even under the loosest definition possible.

• We have had hours of meetings on this, and it is a big priority.

• We have no intention of moving away from creative commons or paywalling users content in any way.

Good, because moving away from Creative Commons retroactively would be illegal. All you are able to do is say that new content is not available under any FOSS license.

I sincerely hope Stack Exchange answers my numerous attempts at contact, but until then, I am currently in contact with JAMS to see if the arbitration agreement is even valid. I have a little money from a GoFundMe (which is still open), so don't be surprised if you hear from an arbitrator or court of law.

The clock is ticking, Stack Exchange.

With regard to licensing alone:

• We have apologized for the fait accompli.

When a moderator has to ask you to sit down for an interview, and has to tell us that himself, that's not an apology. That's act act trying to cover your butt. If you have apologized, by all means, show me and the community where. I certainly haven't seen it.

The "change" is not irreversible. All that has to be done is acknowledge that contributions prior to September 5, 2019 are not and never were released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. That would satisfy the community's concerns over copyright violations (which number to the tens of millions).

• We want to signal our intent to keep up with future changes to CC-BY-SA.

Then write this into the ToS, and never make a change that affects any contributions under anything prior to this change in the ToS. Until then, I am still of the opinion (as are a number of others) that this move was illegal.

• We will create a process and be engaged on licensing issues on Meta.

I am all ears.

I created a post on meta SE where I ask a basic question. This was never answered.
I sent a number of emails to both team and legal at Stack Exchange. None of these were ever answered.
I have pinged community moderators in an attempt to get contact. None were successful.

So please, tell me and the community, what do you classify as "engaged"? You certainly have not done so even under the loosest definition possible.

• We have had hours of meetings on this, and it is a big priority.

• We have no intention of moving away from creative commons or paywalling users content in any way.

Good, because moving away from Creative Commons retroactively would be illegal. All you are able to do is say that new content is not available under any FOSS license.

I sincerely hope Stack Exchange answers my numerous attempts at contact, but until then, I am currently in contact with JAMS to see if the arbitration agreement is even valid. I have a little money from a GoFundMe (which is still open), so don't be surprised if you hear from an arbitrator or court of law.

The clock is ticking, Stack Exchange.

With regard to licensing alone:

• We have apologized for the fait accompli.

When a moderator has to ask you to sit down for an interview, and has to tell us that himself, that's not an apology. That's an act trying to cover your butt. If you have apologized, by all means, show me and the community where. I certainly haven't seen it.

The "change" is not irreversible. All that has to be done is acknowledge that contributions prior to September 5, 2019 are not and never were released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. That would satisfy the community's concerns over copyright violations (which number to the tens of millions).

• We want to signal our intent to keep up with future changes to CC-BY-SA.

Then write this into the ToS, and never make a change that affects any contributions under anything prior to this change in the ToS. Until then, I am still of the opinion (as are a number of others) that this move was illegal.

• We will create a process and be engaged on licensing issues on Meta.

I am all ears.

I created a post on meta SE where I ask a basic question. This was never answered.
I sent a number of emails to both team and legal at Stack Exchange. None of these were ever answered.
I have pinged community moderators in an attempt to get contact. None were successful.

So please, tell me and the community, what do you classify as "engaged"? You certainly have not done so even under the loosest definition possible.

• We have had hours of meetings on this, and it is a big priority.

• We have no intention of moving away from creative commons or paywalling users content in any way.

Good, because moving away from Creative Commons retroactively would be illegal. All you are able to do is say that new content is not available under any FOSS license.

I sincerely hope Stack Exchange answers my numerous attempts at contact, but until then, I am currently in contact with JAMS to see if the arbitration agreement is even valid. I have a little money from a GoFundMe (which is still open), so don't be surprised if you hear from an arbitrator or court of law.

The clock is ticking, Stack Exchange.

With regard to licensing alone:

• We have apologized for the fait accompli.

When a moderator has to ask you to sit down for an interview, and has to tell us that himself, that's not an apology. That's act act trying to cover your butt.

The "change" is not irreversible. All that has to be done is acknowledge that contributions prior to September 5, 2019 are not and never were released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. That would satisfy the community's concerns over copyright violations (which number to the tens of millions).

• We want to signal our intent to keep up with future changes to CC-BY-SA.

Then write this into the ToS, and never make a change that affects any contributions under anything prior to this change in the ToS. Until then, I am still of the opinion (as are a number of others) that this move was illegal.

• We will create a process and be engaged on licensing issues on Meta.

I am all ears.

I created a post on meta SE where I ask a basic question. This was never answered.
I sent a number of emails to both team and legal at Stack Exchange. None of these were ever answered.
I have pinged community moderators in an attempt to get contact. None were successful.

So please, tell me and the community, what do you classify as "engaged"? You certainly have not done so even under the loosest definition possible.

• We have had hours of meetings on this, and it is a big priority.

• We have no intention of moving away from creative commons or paywalling users content in any way.

Good, because moving away from Creative Commons retroactively would be illegal. All you are able to do is say that new content is not available under any FOSS license.

I sincerely hope Stack Exchange answers my numerous attempts at contact, but until then, I am currently in contact with JAMS to see if the arbitration agreement is even valid. I have a little money from a GoFundMe (which is still open), so don't be surprised if you hear from an arbitrator or court of law.

The clock is ticking, Stack Exchange.

With regard to licensing alone:

• We have apologized for the fait accompli.

When a moderator has to ask you to sit down for an interview, and has to tell us that himself, that's not an apology. That's act act trying to cover your butt. If you have apologized, by all means, show me and the community where. I certainly haven't seen it.

The "change" is not irreversible. All that has to be done is acknowledge that contributions prior to September 5, 2019 are not and never were released under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. That would satisfy the community's concerns over copyright violations (which number to the tens of millions).

• We want to signal our intent to keep up with future changes to CC-BY-SA.

Then write this into the ToS, and never make a change that affects any contributions under anything prior to this change in the ToS. Until then, I am still of the opinion (as are a number of others) that this move was illegal.

• We will create a process and be engaged on licensing issues on Meta.

I am all ears.

I created a post on meta SE where I ask a basic question. This was never answered.
I sent a number of emails to both team and legal at Stack Exchange. None of these were ever answered.
I have pinged community moderators in an attempt to get contact. None were successful.

So please, tell me and the community, what do you classify as "engaged"? You certainly have not done so even under the loosest definition possible.

• We have had hours of meetings on this, and it is a big priority.

• We have no intention of moving away from creative commons or paywalling users content in any way.

Good, because moving away from Creative Commons retroactively would be illegal. All you are able to do is say that new content is not available under any FOSS license.

I sincerely hope Stack Exchange answers my numerous attempts at contact, but until then, I am currently in contact with JAMS to see if the arbitration agreement is even valid. I have a little money from a GoFundMe (which is still open), so don't be surprised if you hear from an arbitrator or court of law.

The clock is ticking, Stack Exchange.