Guys, I want to see a discussion on copyright issues here.
At first I thought that gt5050 might be infringing copyright. In particular, if asked, I would have guessed that ownership of the content posted on Stack remained with the askers/answerers. Or, at worse, that the content was released under a non-commercial creative commons license. In fact, it's released under a generic creative commons license (source: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5546/who-is-the-copy...).
How do people feel about an answerer putting x amount of time into writing a free, articulate, well-explained answer, and having that answer repackaged and sold without compensation (or even correspondence)? That kinda' grinds my gears.
To be explicit, although I have similar qualms with Hacker Monthly, they're largely settled by the fact that Cheng Soon contacts the authors and gets explicit permission (even if he doesn't pay them).
That said, gt5050, I mean to take nothing away from the kudos you deserve for delivering a product.
I absolutely understand your concerns regarding copyright issues.
I thought of providing people with an option to read the content on the Kindle as well,and kept only the kindle version at 99 cents.
All the content belongs to Stack Exchange users.
That said, I am now thinking about making this a donation supported app.
Will have to see how that works out.
> How do people feel about an answerer putting x amount
> of time into writing a free, articulate, well-explained
> answer, and having that answer repackaged and sold
> without compensation (or even correspondence)?
It says at the bottom of every page "user contributions licensed under cc-wiki"; by posting content on the site you agree to those terms. They're not being "cheated"[1]—
You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work
Just a little note, I think there's a bug in your profile picture retrieval: asker & answerer have different usernames but the same pictures; e.g. John Skeet & Remus Rusanu on p. 9.
good concept buddy ... The links were missing from the pdf. If pdf could have the links to the original content then it would be more easy to get to the original content
12 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 15.6 ms ] threadAt first I thought that gt5050 might be infringing copyright. In particular, if asked, I would have guessed that ownership of the content posted on Stack remained with the askers/answerers. Or, at worse, that the content was released under a non-commercial creative commons license. In fact, it's released under a generic creative commons license (source: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5546/who-is-the-copy...).
How do people feel about an answerer putting x amount of time into writing a free, articulate, well-explained answer, and having that answer repackaged and sold without compensation (or even correspondence)? That kinda' grinds my gears.
To be explicit, although I have similar qualms with Hacker Monthly, they're largely settled by the fact that Cheng Soon contacts the authors and gets explicit permission (even if he doesn't pay them).
That said, gt5050, I mean to take nothing away from the kudos you deserve for delivering a product.
Just a little note, I think there's a bug in your profile picture retrieval: asker & answerer have different usernames but the same pictures; e.g. John Skeet & Remus Rusanu on p. 9.