Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • 13
    This answer doesn't consider sites like Code Review, where whole, working, real live solutions are routinely published. Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 22:49
  • 1
    @RubberDuck I would think the same principle applies: The question posted (code under review - full working solutions as it were) is part of a larger exercise in documenting/analyzing/critiquing the features and flaws of that code. By posting it your users are allowing others to take it (in whole or in part, with or without modifications) under the CC-BY-SA license terms ("Attribute it appropriately and you're fine"). There is however some fuzz around what constitutes appropriate attribution in a complied product (as just one example) which could stand clarification. Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 22:57
  • 12
    I will say that Code Review (or other sites where a "full working solution" is a major part of the question or answer, like maybe Code Golf) are an interesting challenge here. Code Review in particular may involve large portions of projects under their own licenses, which may conflict with all or part of the MIT license being proposed here. That however is a legal quagmire I do not want to wade into. There is no License Tequila in my office. Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 23:07
  • 1
    if you wrote the code, then it's not much of a quagmire. You have the right to license as you please. It's when it's not your code that it gets sticky. Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 23:48
  • 4
    @RubberDuck Very few large projects (like "operating system scale") are exclusively the work of one person - what part of code you originated which was then modified by someone else and refactored by a third person is "yours" in the sense of the right to dictate licensing? Also worth noting that some projects assume copyright on code contributed to them as part of their conditions of contribution (and pretty much every corporate job does, as it's "work for hire"). And now we're waist-deep in legal mud and I STILL have no License Tequila! Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 23:54
  • 3
    @voretaq7 Did you overlook the SA part of CC-BY-SA? Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 23:59
  • 13
    @CodesInChaos No, nor did I at any time claim that CC-BY-SA was completely without flaws in this regard: The same issues emerge in either case when someone posts content they don't wholly own (though saying "The code is MIT licensed" if it was C&P from a GPL'd project adds a new layer of legal horror to deal with). Frankly I just don't think that split-licensing (especially split-licensing with a ToS that says it's OK to ignore parts of one of the licenses) would be an improvement here: It adds complexity and creates new problems, while not alleviating any of the existing ones. Commented Dec 17, 2015 at 0:17
  • 6
    @CodesInChaos your point does lead into what probably prompted Stack Overflow to start thinking about this though: "Does including a code snippet (in whole or in part with or without modification) invoke the Share Alike requirement and mean you have to distribute the resulting product under CC-BY-SA?" -- As I alluded to in my answer I see the license covering the content as "documentation with examples" (and I'm not in the habit of wholesale C&P Coding), but I can see lawyers bristling over it. (I think there's an alligator swimming in our quagmire now.) Commented Dec 17, 2015 at 0:26
  • @voretaq7, re "by a URL pointing to the source"; Where? Within the source code that no one has access to? Or at the website's about page? Commented Aug 24, 2020 at 7:09