13

I was shocked, while looking for an answer to something on google to see that this:

Standalone JUnit XML report viewer

Was copied over exactly to this other website:

http://newtips.co/standalone-junit-xml-report-viewer/

Is that even legal? I don't know where else to ask this/show this.

| |
12

Looking at this more (and reading the comments below), these are missing the required author attribution - links to the author's profile. It should be reported as described in A site (or scraper) is copying content from Stack Exchange. What do I do?

Original (wrong) answer below:


This irks me somewhat, but, amazingly enough, I believe it's totally legal. The license here requires that they attribute the authors of the content, with a link back to the origin, which they're doing:

enter image description here

That links back to Standalone JUnit XML report viewer on our site.

That said, if you come across one of these that doesn't link back to our site, or any SE site, there's a procedure for reporting them: A site (or scraper) is copying content from Stack Exchange. What do I do?

| |
  • 2
    What are the requirements for "attribution"? – Ira Baxter Oct 19 '15 at 14:07
  • 1
    @IraBaxter It's in that meta post I linked to: "You have to provide attribution. Simple links to the original post and author info are just fine.". It could probably be argued that this site isn't providing a link to the author, so it might be prudent to report it in this case. Not sure. – Undo Oct 19 '15 at 14:14
  • I've already reported a bunch of such sites. Content on SE is protected by the cc by-sa 3.0 license (see bottom of every page) – just follow that link to find out what "attribution" means. If the "copy" states where it comes from, and links back, it's OK (from that point – though I personally find a 1:1 copy more confusing than anthing, especially when encountering them in a Google search), but many sites don't do even that, making money (ads) from our contribution without paying back. – Izzy Oct 19 '15 at 16:06
  • CC BY-SA 3.0 requires a license notice (see on Meta SE: “Attribution Required” misses requirement to reference the license), which this page does not seem to have. ·· And the author names (not links) are required, which this page also doesn’t include (however, here might a link to a page that shows all authors be sufficient, except for deleted questions; but I didn’t verify that). – unor Oct 20 '15 at 5:24
  • @unor: newtips.co is a search engine - and if you are a search engine, you can do whatever you like. There are no laws for search engines. And no, the content is not permanent, it's just in the cache, really! </cynicism> – Thomas Weller Oct 20 '15 at 18:48
  • These are missing the author attributions. Go ahead and call in the air strike. – Michael Hampton Oct 24 '15 at 18:13
3

Assuming that the question/answer authors did not hit an agreement with newtips.co, it is not legal for them to publish the content like that.

All Stack Exchange questions and answers are licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. This license grants everyone certain freedoms as long as they comply with certain rules. If you don’t comply with the rules, you don’t have the freedoms, and the default copyright laws take over.

The rules are listed in section 4:

  • Section 4(a) makes clear that you must include a copy of the license (CC BY-SA 3.0), or the URI for it.

  • Section 4(c) is about how to attribute. To summarize:

    • You have to keep intact all copyright notices.
    • You have to provide the names of the original authors.
    • You have to provide the title (and possibly the URI) of the work.

As of 2015-10-24, newtips.co does not comply, so they are not allowed to use the content under the terms of the license:

  • They don’t say anywhere on that page that the content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
  • They don’t provide the names of the question/answer authors.
| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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