user-1: Atma just became aware that he maybe made some mistakes by giving Dhamma under such circumstance with strings attached. But that is a personal problem to fix that, since he just became aware of that fact by reading (to late) the Subscriber Content - TOS here.
Nevertheless, maybe you like give it a good discussion and find the right answer.

user254: I assume you're asking whether we consider it proper to "share Dhamma" (including our referencing other people's copyrighted resources) on this Buddhism.SE site, given that this site uses a content license which lets people reuse ("share" and "adapt") content "for any purpose, even commercially".

The current content license is here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I think that license says that people may share and/or adapt the content for any purpose (e.g. people may copy it for free, and/or they may sell a book in which it is printed), provided they attribute it.
Regardless of this site's ToS, I hope that the way in which I include in my answers (as referenced/attributed quotes) small extracts (e.g. a paragraph or two), from any book or other web site, is considered Fair use.
Earlier, Yuttadhamo Bikkhu posted this answer on the subject of copyright. The concern he expressed in that answer doesn't (in my opinion though I'm not a lawyer) apply to this site's licence: because even if someone did sell this site's content they couldn't sue you for also distributing the same content freely, because the content is also licensed to you (by the CC BY-SA 3.0 license) just as it is to them.
If you would consider Access to Insight, for example, ATI's FAQ about 'excerpts' says explicitly,

"If the excerpt falls within the scope of "Fair Use" (see Wikipedia), then you are free to use the excerpt and no further permission is required. If the excerpt is more substantial, please contact the author or original publisher to request permission."

In summary I hope that I'm not wrong in assuming that I use (reference) these resources, according to the letter of the law and according to the spirit in which authors make their work available to the public.

user4928: The thing is, when you look at it from a big picture there are not strings attached. The site ultimately runs on advertisement revenue, and they do a great job of not being invasive with them.
Their terms of service must then include that the content contributed can be redistributed for such reasons, as their very platform depends on it. 
The content you put up here can be seen by anyone looking for it, provided they have an internet connection. 
This is a great opportunity for you to practice generosity without an expectation of outcome.
Perhaps you worry the site or community has some type of ulterior motive or agenda, but I really doubt that such is the case. Even if it was (It isn't) why should a gift include a caveat that the receiving ends cannot do what they want with it? 
After all, edits are peer reviewed, a question and answer might slowly transform and become clear and concise, if the right person viewed the topics most suited for their experience. 
No one owns the Dhamma, you cannot buy or sell it, and even if you could, where could you ever find a fair price? 
I worry that you might have gotten the wrong first impressions about the community. 
This might not be the sangha you are used to, as a forest monk the community you are a part of is vastly different. 
I took my time writing this, it had my one pointed concentration.
I hope it finds you well, I hope you can take time to marvel that you are communicating with someone 8,649 mi away, (approximately) someone you might not share the same world view, but has interest in yours, and thinks that your perspective could add value to this stack exchange. 

-1: <p>Atma just became aware that he maybe made some mistakes by giving Dhamma under such circumstance with strings attached. But that is a personal problem to fix that, since he just became aware of that fact by reading (to late) the <a href="http://stackexchange.com/legal">Subscriber Content - TOS</a> here.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, maybe you like give it a good discussion and find the right answer.</p>
 254: <p>I assume you're asking whether we consider it proper to "share Dhamma" (including our referencing other people's copyrighted resources) on this Buddhism.SE site, given that this site uses a content license which lets people reuse ("share" and "adapt") content "for any purpose, even commercially".</p>

<hr>

<p>The current content license is here: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</a></p>

<p>I think that license says that people may share and/or adapt the content for any purpose (e.g. people may copy it for free, and/or they may sell a book in which it is printed), provided they attribute it.</p>

<p>Regardless of this site's ToS, I hope that the way in which I include in my answers (as referenced/attributed quotes) small extracts (e.g. a paragraph or two), from any book or other web site, is considered <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fair use</a>.</p>

<p>Earlier, Yuttadhamo Bikkhu posted <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2869/254">this answer</a> on the subject of copyright. The concern he expressed in that answer doesn't (in my opinion though I'm not a lawyer) apply to this site's licence: because even if someone did sell this site's content they couldn't sue you for also distributing the same content freely, because the content is also licensed to you (by the CC BY-SA 3.0 license) just as it is to them.</p>

<p>If you would consider Access to Insight, for example, <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/faq.html#excerpt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ATI's FAQ about 'excerpts' says</a> explicitly,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"If the excerpt falls within the scope of "Fair Use" (see Wikipedia), then you are free to use the excerpt and no further permission is required. If the excerpt is more substantial, please contact the author or original publisher to request permission."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In summary I hope that I'm not wrong in assuming that I use (reference) these resources, according to the letter of the law and according to the spirit in which authors make their work available to the public.</p>
 4928: <p>The thing is, when you look at it from a big picture there are not strings attached. The site ultimately runs on advertisement revenue, and they do a great job of not being invasive with them.</p>

<p>Their terms of service must then include that the content contributed can be redistributed for such reasons, as their very platform depends on it. </p>

<p>The content you put up here can be seen by anyone looking for it, provided they have an internet connection. 
This is a great opportunity for you to practice generosity without an expectation of outcome.</p>

<p>Perhaps you worry the site or community has some type of ulterior motive or agenda, but I really doubt that such is the case. Even if it was (It isn't) why should a gift include a caveat that the receiving ends cannot do what they want with it? </p>

<p>After all, edits are peer reviewed, a question and answer might slowly transform and become clear and concise, if the right person viewed the topics most suited for their experience. </p>

<p>No one owns the Dhamma, you cannot buy or sell it, and even if you could, where could you ever find a fair price? </p>

<p>I worry that you might have gotten the wrong first impressions about the community. </p>

<p>This might not be the sangha you are used to, as a forest monk the community you are a part of is vastly different. </p>

<p>I took my time writing this, it had my one pointed concentration.
I hope it finds you well, I hope you can take time to marvel that you are communicating with someone 8,649 mi away, (approximately) someone you might not share the same world view, but has interest in yours, and thinks that your perspective could add value to this stack exchange. </p>
