Timeline for The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2015 at 9:38 | comment | added | Michael Karcher | A link to the witdrawal request of CC0 from the OSI process that actually works (pointing to the internet archive): web.archive.org/web/20150906005825/https://lists.opensource.org/… - the problem with CC0 referred to in that context is the explicit non-waiving of patent rights. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 11:04 | comment | added | mirabilos | @MadScientist “speculation that we did not anticipate CC0 usage for software at the time is true” on CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 10:57 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | @mirabilos The FAQ on the CC0 license does state that it is appropriate for code. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 | comment | added | mirabilos | None of the CC licences really works for code. In addition, after reading through it, I think CC-BY is actually a weak copyleft and nowhere as free as the absence of -SA makes people think it is. CC themselves ask people to not use CC0 at all for new works due to perceived problems with it, but have postposed fixing them in favour of bringing out CC-* version 4 licences. Public Domain is not a licence grant, and thus does not allow reuse by people e.g. from different countries, and cannot be granted by most EU citizens either. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 9:36 | comment | added | assylias | Regarding threshold of originality, what do you make of this 9-liner? | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:30 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | +1 for mentioning CC0. Honestly, I don't really think forcing all new code on SO to be released under CC0 would be a good idea (even though I do so myself), but I do think it would surely be better than the proposed "MIT + exemption" hack. Actually, one possible option would be to just use CC-By for code; dropping the ShareAlike clause makes code reuse a lot simpler, while still requiring attribution, and CC-By just requires attribution to be given "in a reasonable manner", without any lengthy boilerplate text like the MIT license has. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 20:57 | comment | added | samthebrand StaffMod | It's a welcome train of thought. We've been reading between the lines on this for so long that we've probably lost a little bit of the forest for the trees. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 20:35 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | @samthebrand It really didn't feel well considered while writing it, it is more of a train of thoughts dumped into a post. But I think that the part that makes it a bit incoherent, the fact that I don't actually know what I'm talking about when it comes to legal issues in licensing, is an important aspect that applies to most users that actually copy or adapt code from SO. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 20:32 | comment | added | samthebrand StaffMod | A really well considered post. Thank you for this. I'll have more to say on this proposal soon, but I look forward to reading any and all related comments. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 20:28 | history | answered | Mad Scientist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |