Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Code To Pick A Date From A Calendar Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <80975697-16e5-46d4-8662-b181c57d2439@googlegroups.com> <501c706e$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <502053b0$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.28.149.29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344364879 17377 127.0.0.1 (7 Aug 2012 18:41:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:41:19 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Received-Bytes: 3897 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:17295 On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:07:18 PM UTC-7, Mike Winter wrote: > On 07/08/2012 00:30, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: >> Obviously code posted here is copyrighted. >> >> The question is whether posting to usenet implicit >> provides a "permissible license". >> >> Web fora where users has to register can require an >> explicit accept. >=20 >> SO: >> >> You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network > > is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the > > Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack > > Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, > > cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works an= d > > store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so in any mediu= m > > now known or hereinafter developed (=93Content License=94) in order to > > provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been > > contributed and subsequently removed by You. > ... =20 >> I would argue that usenet posts via tradition, logic and >> similarity comes with an implicit license for free >> usage by anyone. >=20 > If I'm not mistaken, those sorts of licenses are merely to permit sites= =20 > that retain user submissions to store that content and resend it others= =20 > in some form (usually forums) without infringing on copyright. It=20 > doesn't automatically allow other users to use that content as it's the= =20 > site that is granted the license--the work isn't placed into the Public= =20 > Domain. >=20 > Of course, these licenses do mean that such websites could, in=20 > principle, take someones hard work and use it themselves even though the= =20 > original creator retains ownership. >=20 The Creative Commons License explicitly allows that, yes. > I would argue that the "to allow others" phrase in the Stack Exchange=20 > terms is intended to refer only to third-parties that work with them to= =20 > provide or develop its services rather than others generally, but it's=20 > ill-defined [sic] here and could extend to anyone SE deems applicable. You'd be mistaken. Stack Exchange explicitly specifies the Creative Commons Attribution=20 Share Alike license.=20 That's not ill defined and extends to everyone irrespective of whom SE=20 deems applicable. It explicitly allows everyone access, not just SE. If the= y=20 hadn't intended that, they wouldn't have specified a license that explicitl= y=20 exists for the very purpose of extending universal access. --=20 Lew