Timeline for The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 17:56 | comment | added | cfr | @Deduplicator It need not be a link-only post. The explanation can be here. Only the code needs to be elsewhere. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 16:20 | comment | added | Deduplicator | @cfr Link-only-posts are already disallowed. Which answers your rhetoric question... | |
| Dec 20, 2015 at 3:29 | comment | added | cfr | As I read it users will not be ALLOWED to require attribution through anything they do here. The choice will be between not posting code here and accepting the waiver. The only thing you'll be able to do is to track down any project which uses your code, after it uses it, and retrospectively request attribution. If that's right, I would expect people who care to cease posting code here. It might be worth exploring other options. Code could be posted elsewhere and a link provided in the answer. I can see a lot of link-based answers, maybe an image of the code. Sound useful? Well.... | |
| Dec 20, 2015 at 1:55 | comment | added | aroth | "I also have no way to track who takes it from the site" - In other words, no matter what the license says on paper, it's effectively unenforceable anyways. All the more reason to simplify the 'on paper' version. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 18:12 | comment | added | rutter | Also, what happens when someone edits a post to remove that comment? | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 17:11 | comment | added | Anko | What if we reduced legal noise by letting people choose a license and displaying their choice clearly? | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 20:54 | comment | added | Richard Le Mesurier | @Josh imagine that header now taking over all code snippets on our site :) | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 19:29 | comment | added | jscs | Heh, @RichardLeMesurier. You and anyone else who reads this comment may use it under the terms of the CC0 license. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 10:24 | comment | added | Richard Le Mesurier |
@Josh, would you mind if copy that boilerplate into my own future answers? I will of course add full attribution to this post when I do it: # Original attribution request taken from Josh Caswell at http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/271105/188823
|
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 4:06 | comment | added | Booga Roo | @samthebrand A blanket exception to attribution requirements would probably make me add comments like that to all my answers. I love sharing my knowledge, but sometimes answers take hours(or days) of self-education and research before an answer can be given. Attribution is the least I can ask for as recognition for my contributions. Sure, Shog's suggestion of adding a UI for it makes it easier to put back what was taken away, but I don't think that makes the noise no longer noise. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 1:46 | comment | added | Jeffrey Bosboom | @samthebrand When you say you want to "discourage" these comments, it sounds like you're just hoping we will acquiesce to the waiver even if we have the right to require attribution. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 0:53 | comment | added | Wildcard | @samthebrand, your comment makes it sound like you just need to explain the license differently, not actually change the license, in order to "discourage [such comments]". Does that mean that code users can't use code without attribution regardless of attribution being explicitly requested or not? Why would you "discourage" comments requesting attribution unless attribution is legally required by default? And if attribution is legally required by default, then what is the exception to the MIT license about? | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 20:42 | comment | added | samthebrand StaffMod | This is a good point Josh (OP). I agree comments like that smell like noise and we need to reconsider the way we explain the license to discourage them. Rounding up with the lawyers on this one. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 20:35 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | I've seen people do this already; usually not for trivial amounts of code though. I guess formalizing it ain't awful; if it becomes pervasive, that's reason enough to build a UI for it. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 20:32 | history | answered | jscs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |