Hacker News Reader

Comment by jesterson | Hacker News Reader

Now your intelligence was shamelessly stolen and other people making billions of it.

Stack Overflow is CC licensed

> Content contributed before 2011-04-08 (UTC) is distributed under the terms of CC BY-SA 2.5. Content contributed from 2011-04-08 up to but not including 2018-05-02 (UTC) is distributed under the terms of CC BY-SA 3.0. Content contributed on or after 2018-05-02 (UTC) is distributed under the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0.

CC BY-SA requires attribution. And is actually quite like GPL, in that it requires derivatives to be under CC BY-SA too!

And not only CC BY-SA 2.5 requires attribution which wasn't provided by any of the AI corpos stealing that data, it also requires that derivative product MUST be licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 too. So literally all AI models are in violation.

True for OP and true for Linus Torvalds. Is the solution to stop with open source, and never to publish anything? ;)

Yes

If it turns out that you have no control over what happens with your IP because someone will ignore the license and then make you pay for accessing stolen content then yes, that is certainly one of the solutions. It is also the reason why I recently decided against publishing my personal projects.

No, the solution is to force tech companies to pay a VAT that can then be used for public benefit software projects.

They were publicly posting to a search-indexed website with the intent of helping people. I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that they understood that SO owned the messages and were already profiting off of them.

I believe the GP is referring to the LLM firms that have hoovered up all works they can find, legally or not.

Of course stepping past the licensing question - I would have never contributed to SO as I did had I known what was to come.

With SO itself I could at least see the value in having a central store of knowledge for these topics and so, hey, I don’t mind that they got to be the ones to make it happen and profit.

No they don't understand that SO owned the messages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50287815 - someone telling StackOverflow to "rest in piss" because another user dared edit "MY TEXT" which is "unacceptable".

Presenting CC-BY-SA as "SO owns anything" is an even more terrible lack of understanding.

Your comment is low quality; it's an insult, it explains nothing, and the nitpick changes nothing about the point.

That person is right to be angry with StackOverflow for that, and another comment explains that StackOverflow was editing their words but still claiming that they them. That can cause reputational damage. StackOverflow should have been sued over that.

Power and responsibility go together. The power to edit needs to be attached to the responsibility of having your name next to those edits. That person's point isn't about ownership at all, it's about attribution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com