You are not transferring copyright (so you can still additionally distribute it under a different license), but you are licensing it to them under their terms (currently CC, potentially MIT).
A major premise of Stack Overflow was that it must be possible for the content to be migrated somewhere else if the company becomes malicious (to avoid being seen as another Experts Exchange). This requires consistent licensing which is compatible with this premise. Allowing users to enforce arbitrary licensing restrictions on their posts would undermine this.
>but you are licensing it to them under their terms (currently CC, potentially MIT).
I see, thanks.
I wish I was told about this issue (and the current potential license migration) by SO. Instead I had to come here to read about a change that will be applied, and due to my low number of points on the site, not have my voice heard.
SO might want to give the appearance of some friendly "democratic" place, but the "this thread has been closed for being off topic" and crap like this license debate has really turned me off.
If they cared about the users, "meta" would not be so hidden away as it is, and certainly not issues like this - yet apparently the choosing of a new moderator by vote (glorified ego contest) is enough to send me notifications about.
What a joke; I can't wait for a better site to come along.
The discussion linked here is linked to on every single question page, question list, and homepage of Stack Overflow. And the same for every other site on Stack Exchange.
A major premise of Stack Overflow was that it must be possible for the content to be migrated somewhere else if the company becomes malicious (to avoid being seen as another Experts Exchange). This requires consistent licensing which is compatible with this premise. Allowing users to enforce arbitrary licensing restrictions on their posts would undermine this.