Return to Question

On meta ELU, there's a question: Mass infringement of our copyright, which goes on about how some SE sites are being "scraped"; cut and pasted with no attribution, to sites such as LearnHub.org.

From what I gather, their site hurriedly put up: Question is already asked and answered on Stackexchange.com and shared under Creative Commons - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic

Is that enough to fulfill their legal obligation? Was it ever required, or is LearnHub just crossing their T's and dotting their I's?

I must admit, my eyes glazed over reading this and this, my take-away being that it's not even required here legally, that's just our site rules.

On meta ELU, there's a question: Mass infringement of our copyright, which goes on about how some SE sites are being "scraped"; cut and pasted with no attribution, to sites such as LearnHub.org.

From what I gather, their site hurriedly put up: Question is already asked and answered on Stackexchange.com and shared under Creative Commons - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic

Is that enough to fulfill their legal obligation? Was it ever required, or is LearnHub just crossing their T's and dotting their I's?

I must admit, my eyes glazed over reading this and this, my take-away being that it's not even required here legally, that's just our site rules.

On meta ELU, there's a question: Mass infringement of our copyright, which goes on about how some SE sites are being "scraped"; cut and pasted with no attribution, to sites such as LearnHub.org.

From what I gather, their site hurriedly put up: Question is already asked and answered on Stackexchange.com and shared under Creative Commons - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic

Is that enough to fulfill their legal obligation? Was it ever required, or is LearnHub just crossing their T's and dotting their I's?

I must admit, my eyes glazed over reading this and this, my take-away being that it's not even required here legally, that's just our site rules.

On meta ELU, there's a question: Mass infringement of our copyright, which goes on about how some SE sites are being "scraped"; cut and pasted with no attribution, to sites such as LearnHub.org.

From what I gather, their site hurriedly put up: Question is already asked and answered on Stackexchange.com and shared under Creative Commons - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic

Is that enough to fulfill their legal obligation? Was it ever required, or is LearnHub just crossing their T's and dotting their I's?

I must admit, my eyes glazed over reading this and this, my take-away being that it's not even required here legally, that's just our site rules.

On meta ELU, there's a question: Mass infringement of our copyright, which goes on about how some SE sites are being "scraped"; cut and pasted with no attribution, to sites such as LearnHub.org.

From what I gather, their site hurriedly put up: Question is already asked and answered on Stackexchange.com and shared under Creative Commons - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic

Is that enough to fulfill their legal obligation? Was it ever required, or is LearnHub just crossing their T's and dotting their I's?

I must admit, my eyes glazed over reading this and this, my take-away being that it's not even required here legally, that's just our site rules.

On meta ELU, there's a question: Mass infringement of our copyright, which goes on about how some SE sites are being "scraped"; cut and pasted with no attribution, to sites such as LearnHub.org.

From what I gather, their site hurriedly put up: Question is already asked and answered on Stackexchange.com and shared under Creative Commons - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic

Is that enough to fulfill their legal obligation? Was it ever required, or is LearnHub just crossing their T's and dotting their I's?

I must admit, my eyes glazed over reading this and this, my take-away being that it's not even required here legally, that's just our site rules.