7

Proposal: Skeptic Exchange

Edit:

The SE v1.0 site http://www.skepticexchange.org/ contains some good questions and answers, will/should/can this content be moved in to the v2.0 site when it goes live?

Original questions

  1. Do people like the name Skeptic Exchange?
  2. When private beta and public beta are complete should it move to http://www.skepticexchange.org/

I own skepticexchange.org but am happy to transfer it to StackExchange if they want it.

3
  • 2
    Again @rjstelling I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this question shouldn't be addressed here
    – Ivo Flipse
    Commented Jan 28, 2011 at 15:10
  • 1
    Understood, I have voted to close.
    – Richard Stelling
    Commented Jan 28, 2011 at 15:29
  • 6
    @rjstelling (and @Ivo Filipse): Are you asking if your site and data should be imported into the SE 2.0 site (possibly on topic), or are you asking if the site should just use the domain name (off topic)? A question like "Should site-x be migrated into this site?" might actually be on topic here. It certainly affects the nature of the proposal. I'm not entirely sure; we're still working our way through these issues.
    – Robert Cartaino
    Commented Jan 28, 2011 at 15:57

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

The content on www.skepticexchange.org is licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, all stackexchange sites are licensed as CC BY-SA 2.5.

So you can't do it without making sceptic.SE use a different license from the other SE sites. And I'm pretty sure that's undesired.

That's why I require the users of the wikis I control to give me extensive rights on their content, so I can relicense it if necessary. But it's too late to do that now.

5
  • The licence only requires: Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike surely this can be acommindated.
    – Richard Stelling
    Commented Feb 5, 2011 at 18:46
  • 4
    The two licenses are incompatible. And having different licenses inside the SE network has issues. For example when migrating questions/answers between sites.
    – CodesInChaos
    Commented Feb 5, 2011 at 19:18
  • 2
    The non-commercial bit might be a problem because Stack Exchange is a commercial venture. On the other hand, the copyright declaration says just "Skeptic Exchange". I recall that the original OnStartups Answers had a similar declaration (but no mention of Creative Commons). In the case of OnStartups, all the existing posts were migrated into the Stack Exchange network and given the standard Creative Commons by-sa 2.5 generic license.
    – moberley
    Commented Feb 5, 2011 at 23:31
  • The two licenses are incompatible, but as moberly points out, the copyright owner can always create new licenses. (The license restrictions do not bind the copyright owner, as I understand it.) Since the questioner owns the domain name, he probably owns the copyright or knows who does.
    – M. Alan Thomas II
    Commented Apr 15, 2011 at 17:37
  • 1
    @MAlan The copyright owner is the individual poster unless there was an explicit agreement to transfer it(or at least give enough rights) to the website owner. And contacting all individual posters is usually impossible to do on a public forum.
    – CodesInChaos
    Commented Apr 23, 2011 at 20:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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