4

Softwaretalk.info seems to be serving up Super User content without attribution.

Are they violating a content license?

Update

I missed the footer attribution. Maybe I need new glasses?

  • the license is right there at the very bottom – Simon Sheehan Mar 14 '12 at 23:54
  • @SimonSheehan - It certainly is, hence the remark about possibly needing new glasses. – Mark Johnson Mar 14 '12 at 23:59
8

Stack Exchange content is distributed under the following license:

user contributions licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required.

They...

  • link to user profiles of both OP and answerers
  • Mention that the content is from Stack Exchange (footer: Content from Superuser of Stack Exchange)
  • Link to the original question (footer: Original article at Superuser.)
  • None of the links are nofollowed

So they satisfy the license requirements. If they didn't, we could add them to the list of license offenders.

  • 3
    +1 … and what are you doing on a Saturday this early? :) – slhck Dec 3 '11 at 7:57
5

Here are the requirements for attribution:

Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault, or Super User in some way. It doesn’t have to be obnoxious; a discreet text blurb is fine.

That's fine. They say: "Content from Superuser of Stack Exchange. Original article at Superuser." at the bottom.

Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site

They do that as well.

Show the author names for every question and answer

That's in there too, also for the comments.

Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site

They also took care about that.


Therefore, I don't see a particular problem with that site, at least in terms of missing attribution.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .