Hacker News Reader

SO made available a CC'd database during a period when many -- including many on here -- were arguing that there should be an open-source, wikipedia-like alternative, coupled with a lot of nonsensical "I could make that on a weekend" claims.

That movement disappeared once SO started making the DB available for download.

View on HN

Historically untrue. Stack Overflow promised that its data would belong to the users from the very beginning. The data was created by its users and belongs to its users. We saw what happens when a commercial entity starts to try charging for content generated by its users (mostly experts-exchange, but also imdb and cddb) and wanted to ensure that could never happen. Our creative commons data dump is a promise to the community that the content they've created can never be locked behind a paywall.

Historically untrue.

What's untrue about it? While SO had a CC policy since the early days, the actual CC database, which was the subject of my post, was made available well over a year later, coinciding with a outpouring of foolish developers claiming that they could recreate the site on the weekend. I recall the timing simply because it was interesting seeing how that momentum disappeared.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com