Comment by mosdl 1 year ago AI just stole all its content, I wonder if they will choose to sue. 10 comments mosdl Reply wanderingstan 1 year ago Stack overflow never owned the content, it is and was Creative Commons: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing amanaplanacanal 1 year ago That license comes with obligations that the AI companies aren't following. bawolff 1 year ago Its highly debatable if that's true.The cc lience only applies to the presentation of the information, it doesn't apply to the factual content of the information. Which part openAI used is a matter of much controversy. 5 replies → souldeux 1 year ago A distinction that is unfortunately as important as it is meaningless zahlman 1 year ago That license is granted to the community, but per the linked Terms of Service, the company gets a slightly different license (https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public#lice... ; scroll to "Subscriber Content"). Emphasis on:> ... and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to ...
wanderingstan 1 year ago Stack overflow never owned the content, it is and was Creative Commons: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing amanaplanacanal 1 year ago That license comes with obligations that the AI companies aren't following. bawolff 1 year ago Its highly debatable if that's true.The cc lience only applies to the presentation of the information, it doesn't apply to the factual content of the information. Which part openAI used is a matter of much controversy. 5 replies → souldeux 1 year ago A distinction that is unfortunately as important as it is meaningless zahlman 1 year ago That license is granted to the community, but per the linked Terms of Service, the company gets a slightly different license (https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public#lice... ; scroll to "Subscriber Content"). Emphasis on:> ... and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to ...
amanaplanacanal 1 year ago That license comes with obligations that the AI companies aren't following. bawolff 1 year ago Its highly debatable if that's true.The cc lience only applies to the presentation of the information, it doesn't apply to the factual content of the information. Which part openAI used is a matter of much controversy. 5 replies → souldeux 1 year ago A distinction that is unfortunately as important as it is meaningless
bawolff 1 year ago Its highly debatable if that's true.The cc lience only applies to the presentation of the information, it doesn't apply to the factual content of the information. Which part openAI used is a matter of much controversy. 5 replies →
zahlman 1 year ago That license is granted to the community, but per the linked Terms of Service, the company gets a slightly different license (https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public#lice... ; scroll to "Subscriber Content"). Emphasis on:> ... and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to ...
Stack overflow never owned the content, it is and was Creative Commons: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
That license comes with obligations that the AI companies aren't following.
Its highly debatable if that's true.
The cc lience only applies to the presentation of the information, it doesn't apply to the factual content of the information. Which part openAI used is a matter of much controversy.
5 replies →
A distinction that is unfortunately as important as it is meaningless
That license is granted to the community, but per the linked Terms of Service, the company gets a slightly different license (https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public#lice... ; scroll to "Subscriber Content"). Emphasis on:
> ... and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to ...