Guys, I want to see a discussion on copyright issues here.<p>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: <a href="http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5546/who-is-the-copyright-holder-of-stackoverflow-user-contributed-content" rel="nofollow">http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/5546/who-is-the-copy...</a>).<p>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.<p>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).<p>That said, gt5050, I mean to take nothing away from the kudos you deserve for delivering a product.