Timeline for The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2020 at 7:42 | comment | added | Nemo | @Pacerier I think I did; I'm saying there are ways to distribute things under cc-by-sa. What do you mean by "their combination"? There are differences between a collection of works and a derivative work, for instance. | |
| Aug 24, 2020 at 7:21 | comment | added | Pacerier | @Nemo, You didn't catch AP's point. If the prose is viral, and the code is dual-licensed, then their combination cannot be MIT, Therefore Stackoverflow needs to publish an additional page (with the submitter's permission) without the bundling. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 15:28 | comment | added | Nemo | @JimmyHoffa perhaps you and I are reading a different post, but Ilmari's answer has 3 out of 5 paragraphs on why dual-licensing is better for SE, SE posters and reusers. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | Jimmy Hoffa | @IlmariKaronen it's really not a "benefit of the doubt" situation though. It's stated quite clearly. I would encourage you to elaborate on why the single license distribution is a "badly thought out choice" in your answer so you can clarify why you suggest dual licensing over single licensing (since dual licensing is a recommendation you're making in a somewhat backwards way - and absolutely nobody else is fronting the idea) | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 14:19 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @JimmyHoffa: I do wish to give SO the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they simply phrased the proposal poorly. As I note above, not actually making all content available under a single license (or, especially, not requiring contributors to give SO the right to distribute everything under a single license) would seem a... rather badly thought out choice. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 13:30 | comment | added | Jimmy Hoffa | Interesting answer which seems...wrong. You say "make clear that they mean dual licensing" - when every way I read their post, they are saying it will explicitly be not dual licensed. I don't think they should make it's dual-licensing clear unless they change their minds to decide they want to dual license.. | |
| Dec 20, 2015 at 18:19 | comment | added | Nemo | Yes, dual-licensing the code is best. However! MIT isn't copyleft, so I doubt there would be issues incorporating MIT works into CC-BY-SA works. The only real requirement MIT has is mentioning the copyright holder, which is satisfied even by CC-BY; reproducing the license itself is often done simply by naming it in a ode header... The derivative, CC-BY-SA work is a separate thing and can be under its own license. That said, it would be useful to first get Creative Commons to say that MIT is compatible with CC-BY-SA (one way, of course)... except, what SE proposes isn't even MIT. | |
| Dec 20, 2015 at 1:15 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @curiousdannii: Compatibility isn't irrelevant. Any forks of the content will carry only one of the licenses. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 3:57 | comment | added | rolfl | Your answer is intriguing, but, to me, what I really am confused about, is who in the OSI actually helped with this. My respect for them is diminished. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 3:32 | comment | added | hardmath | Until now I have used the dual licensing approach (CC-By-SA + GPL) for complete or nearly so programs, though omitting this for code fragments that are small (relative to comments outlining the GPL license grant). I'm not as familiar with the MIT license as I would like to be to offer full throated agreement to the proposed policy change. In my mind MIT = BSD + attribution requirement. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 1:21 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @curiousdannii: Exactly, that's why I brought up the issue as one more reason in favor of explicit dual-licensing. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 1:17 | comment | added | curiousdannii | If something is dual licensed then the compatiblity of those licenses is irrelevant. You can dual (well multi) license something as GPL, MIT and a All-Rights-Reserved commercial license. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:13 | history | answered | Ilmari Karonen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |