Re^5: SO and AI

[marto]

I'm not so sure: " and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content..."

[pryrt]

The SO article you referenced reminds you (the one who posts) that you cannot revoke the permission, but the permission you grant them is under CC BY-SA 4.0, which requires the licensee (SO) to give appropriate credit (which includes name and license information).

I don't see how attribution is optional on SO's part.

[marto]

I posted that in response to the question of retaining control ('He wants to keep control that his contributions are used in the same spirit') rather than attribution. I've made no mention of attribution in this post.

[LanX]

Maybe my English lacks legal clarity.

"Same spirit" means it's available for questions and his attributions are honored.

If that's not the case he can sue SO.

AI opens a box of worms though, I'm not sure to which extend an averaged answer can attribute to all authors who contributed.

If my biological intelligence answers here, I'm mostly not capable to list all people I learned from.

That's a question for courts.

[LanX]

Hmm, the attribution thing is unclear to me.

Clearly they want that the authors do proper attribution, but do they have to attribute those authors too?

Update

I'd say yes