Currently, on request, we can give any user access [to an import](/meta?q=236#a176) tool. This imports individual questions and (optionally) some or all of its answers.
We need to decide what we want to import from unix.se, if anything. What should the aim be? Import:
1. the best questions and answers individually
1. all questions and answers by particular users who posts are generally very high quality
1. some other subset of posts
If the answer is 3 or 4 (or possibly 5), we will need new bulk import tools to help us. That's not going to be a problem, though it may take a few weeks to arrange, but the point of this post is to imagine all our options are available and decide what our ideal policy on importing content should be.
We may want to bear in mind the experience so far of (1) databases.ta, and (2) writing.codidact.com:
1. databases.ta have opted to be highly selective about imports, and subsequently, nearly all imported questions have been given the minor markdown tweaks required to fix them up here, and have received some attention in the form of votes.
2. writing.codidact.com imported everything from an SE data dump. So far, only about 200 questions have received an upvote out of about 9000 — presumably roughly the same ratio holds for answers.
# Everything Legally Allowed
As an author who uses non-proprietary licenses, I would be disappointed if people treated my answers like they were proprietary and the work had to be recreated.
I wouldn't have contributed answers to StackExchange if they had insisted on using a proprietary license. I think many authors feel the same: they did the work for everyone, not as a gift to some for-profit business.
As for whether the answers should be culled by quality during import, I think not. Let the bad answers sink to the bottom and the cream rise to the top.
...or nearly nothing.
I spoke a little bit to my feelings about this [over in the heap] but it was resoundingly opposed by the majority of that community. Nonetheless, if the question is being posed separately for a separate "network", then I'll make the case again.
Importing content from SE feels like forking an OSS repo without the intent to contribute back upstream. That being said, I would feel a lot better about importing content in the following circumstances
* if there's a bona-fide worry that the value of `u&l.se` content will be lost
* if there exists a mechanism to merge updates from the upstream (SE) content AND a push updates _from_ TA back to SE
* if there's a separate featureset _here_ that needs the content locally
* off the top of my head: a "my favorite U&L Q&As" tab or something
* in this case, I'd still advocate to support upstream updates, and would also push for a more _general_ import feature (not just SE)
Otherwise, let SE content stay on SE. Let this community be its own thing. Cite SE as you would any other blog or network. Don't let's cherry-pick just a few things to mirror unless we make ourselves a mandate as to why.