A user has twice erroneously rolled back a corrective typo edit and argues that an edit:

...implicitly creates the impression that I endorse the new wording and, by doing so, violates the last sentence of the CC license's section 4c.

Stack Exchange uses CC 3.0; the text of section 4c is:

If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Ssection 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.

There appears to be nothing whatsoever in that clause which pertains to preventing typo edits.

Does CC 3.0 Section 4c prevent typo edits?

  • Isn't both "contentment" and "content" correct in this context? I don't really understand the issue? That being said, slapping the license around is rather lame at best. At any rate, this user made a similar point here. – user11249 Apr 29 '18 at 23:41
  • 3
    Opensource.se or law.se might take this. – user9389 Apr 30 '18 at 1:51
  • @Carpetsmoker, Perhaps there's some form pidgin English that might accept it, otherise no. – agc Apr 30 '18 at 2:09
  • Just because it's little-used doesn't mean it's wrong. There are many word combinations that you can't find on Google ngram. Either way, this user has a habit of throwing an incredible fuss over minor edits. It's not worth really worth anyone's time engaging with people like that IMHO. – user11249 Apr 30 '18 at 2:09
  • 1
    @Carpetsmoker, We agree that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with an expressive uncommon usage -- often they're charming and distinctive; but not, (barring poetic merit), an eccentric usage that's vaguer than a standard usage. If SE's current policies can't cope with the occasional fussy user, those policies themselves are in fact the greater problem. – agc Apr 30 '18 at 2:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .