Show HN: OverflowMonthly
overflowmonthly.com
overflowmonthly.com
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.
> 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)?
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.