Licence of user-generated content on Bright Journey


1

First off - congrats for saving the old site - and apologies for kicking off with a niggly question.

However, all of the user-generated content on the old SE site was CC licensed. I see you've noted this on the current T&Cs

Bright Journey was initially started with help of content from the closed OnStartups community on StackExchange. Those questions and answers on Bright Journey are under a CC by-sa 3.0 license.
However - I don't see a similar statement about CC licensing of new content:
  1. If it's under the same CC by-sa 3.0 licence it would be useful if it was explicit.
  2. If it isn't, they'll need to be some way of figuring out "old" and "new" content so folk can understand what licence it is distributed under.

For me, personally, I'd prefer that the new content was under the same licence. It would make me more likely to contribute and, if the worst happens, would allow the content to live on if something happened to Bright Journey in the future.

As it stands somebody couldn't rebuild BJ in the same way that BJ recreated the old SE site.

Bright Journey

asked Mar 3 '14 at 19:11
Blank
Adrian Howard
2,357 points
  • I for one, would like to see the same license as well. – rbwhitaker 3 years ago
Add Comment

1 Answer


4

I agree as well!

We launched with a generic T&C that was customized -- all time was spent to get the site up quickly. We figured this could be added in later.

I will need your help in guiding us through this. Would I be correct to assume the following process:

  1. All SE questions have a byline at the bottom stating it's under a CC by-sa from SE.
  2. All new questions that were created on Bright Journey have a similar byline, but slightly modified so that any use provides the attribution to Bright Journey.

Question: We would need to get a custom T&C created that reflects the CC license, correct? Are there any generic versions available online for use?

answered Mar 3 '14 at 19:29
Blank
Nishank Khanna
4,253 points
  • My understanding was that you need to give credit to the author, not the site. If this is the case, there'd be no difference in what needs to be stated between SE and Bright Journey. – rbwhitaker 3 years ago
  • @RB When someone uses the CC content on their site, they have to link back to the source (i.e. the user's name links back to the profile the content was found on, etc). Here's a relevant answer by Jeff Atwood on Stack: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/65935/correct-attribution-is-impossible-for-failed-sites/65948Nishank Khanna 3 years ago
  • @Nishank, I double checked and it looks like you're right. The requirements by CC-A are actually pretty complicated. More so than I had initially imagined. – rbwhitaker 3 years ago
  • @RB I'm adding this to the Roadmap. We definitely should put all of Bright Journey under a CC license with the right implementation. We should have an API as well to go along with it -- no point of a CC license if other sites can't easily get the data out :) – Nishank Khanna 3 years ago
  • Still no clarification on the licenceā€¦ – Adrian Howard 2 years ago
Add Comment

Your Answer

  • Bold
  • Italic
  • • Bullets
  • 1. Numbers
  • Quote
Not the answer you're looking for? Ask your own question or browse other questions in these topics:

Bright Journey