13 ms·
A New Code License: The MIT, This Time with Attribution Required
- shmageggy 11y agoAnd just who will be enforcing this? Right, nobody. A bad law is worse than no law.
- detaro 11y agoSo the code being under Creative Commons (as it was before) wasn't a (even worse) law?
- mixedmath 11y agoThis would be enforced exactly as all copyright is enforced --- through lawsuit.
- shmageggy 11y agoAnd who will be initiating and paying for these lawsuits?
- cjensen 11y agoCopyright lawsuits can only be initiated by the copyright holder -- the person who wrote the code being copied. StackOverflow does not claim copyright ownership of a user's comments. Which is exactly how Wikipedia and others work.
- shmageggy 11y agoWhich is my (implicit) point. The userbase of SO does not include entities who have any incentive to litigate to protect their posted code.
- gruez 11y agoNew startup idea: acquire copyright to stack exchange solutions (there must be at least some authors willing to sell out), sue companies, patent troll style.
- weinzierl 11y agoI never understood how attribution worked on Stackoverflow anyway. 1. I post something to SO and the terms say it is CC-BY-SA. 2. Someone uses my post and properly links back to SO. SO's terms require this. Shouldn't the attribution primarily mention me, the author of the post? How can a link back to SO be required as attribution for my content? It's not that I assigned my copyright to SO, I just posted my CC-BY-SA content on their site. SO is just the middleman. I'm OK with attributing SO and I don't doubt the terms are legally clean. I just goes against my understanding of CC-BY-SA. as well as the new SO MIT attribution construction.
- detaro 11y agoThey say that attributions should mention the author of the post, and also did so before? Or are you arguing against mentioning SO at all? It would be interesting if that part would be enforceable. https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/ https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
- weinzierl 11y agoOr are you arguing against mentioning SO at all? Not really arguing against that because I think it's fair. Playing devil's advocate I can't see how it is legally justified though. It would be interesting if that part would be enforceable. Yes, this is the interesting question.
- fenomas 11y agoI'm no expert, but I read them as saying only that attribution is required, and a link to your SO answer counts as attribution. Presumably the user is also free to provide attribution without an SO link, assuming they satisfy CC-BY-SA.
- sambrand 11y agoAttribution doesn't necessarily need to be a name or contact information. It just has to help end users identify the provenance of a work of intellectual property. A URL does that. Many end users are already including URLs in their code to indicate where they found a snippet - compliance with the new terms is already somewhat socialized. That's a big reason we chose these terms. We spoke at length with the Open Source Initiative about using a URL as attribution, and they agreed it works in our case.
- yarrel 11y agoOr the 3-clause BSD license, as it used to be known and avoided. Edit: OK, not quite. :-)
- johnmaguire2013 11y agoCan anyone explain why CC recommends using other licenses for code? Why is a license change necessary in the first place? [1] https://creativecommons.org/software/ https://creativecommons.org/software/
- jordigh 11y agoCode is used in ways that other works are not. For example, code has source code, or "preferred form for modification", as the GPL calls it. Code, sadly, may run afoul of patents, whereas a novel or a painting probably does not. Software licenses usually have clauses around these points. Contrariwise, some licenses like the GPLv3 have intentionally broad language to cover works other than code.
- jordigh 11y agoWhat's the actual license text? I couldn't find it. And is mandatory attribution GPL-compatible? The 4-clause BSD license is not GPL-compatible because of its advertising clause.
- detaro 11y agoThe box with the "new fine print" links to https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT And yes, MIT is compatible to GPL.
- ue_ 11y agoIt's unclear if I will be able to license the code I post in answers as I see fit - or if SO is forcing me to use a certain license. I don't want my code to be used in proprietary projects.
- dtparr 11y agoI'll admit to always being a little confused about this point with reference to StackOverflow. It's a question and answer site that generally involves small, self-contained bits of code. How is answering the question not giving an implicit license to use that answer? Are your answers really so substantive that licensing it seems appropriate? Should I not accept your answer if my question is about proprietary projects so that I can wait for someone with a different license preference to come along and give me an answer I can use? I suppose I've always looked at SO as devs helping devs, almost like a virtual coworking space. If the guy next to me is having trouble, and I look over and help him solve the issue, I'm not then going to go "oh, and btw, I'm going to need some attribution, and you're only allowed to use my solution if your project meets my criteria."
- DanBC 11y ago> It's a question and answer site that generally involves small, self-contained bits of code. What happens if I scrape SO so I can print and sell a book?
- johnlbevan2 11y agoYou get a poorly written book which no one buys because they can get the content for free online.
- mikekchar 11y agoCollections are covered by copyright. So even though a recipe is not copyright-able, a book containing recipes is. One of the reasons you will see recipes filled with many paragraphs of filler is that it then becomes a literary work which is covered by copyright. Having said that, I would be surprised if the majority of code in SO is generally copyright-able. If I ask a question, "How do I initialise an object in C++" and the answer is a few lines of code, I do not think that this is a copyright-able work. It is a technique. Even if the code is long enough to be copyright-able, I don't think using the technique would be considered a derived work. Whatever the case, scraping portions of SO would be a copyright violation since it is a collection.
- placeybordeaux 11y agoI see this as reasonable and pragmatic, I have seen this type of attribution happen organically hundreds of times. However it is obviously bad for the copy-left movement.
- dsr_ 11y agoI've only been working with open source licenses since 1992, and it's not obvious to me how required attribution is bad. Can you explain, please?
- cwyers 11y agoGPL incompatibility.
- detaro 11y agoSince when is MIT license not compatible to GPL? The FSF seems to think it is: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat
- belorn 11y agoIn section 7, Additional Terms: b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or... Author attributions seems to be quite clearly considered as compatible with GPLv3.
- jonathankoren 11y agoHuh? The GPL already requires an appropriate copyright notice.[1] This is not the same as the BSD advertising clause [2]. I don't see how attribution is any different. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#IWantCredit http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html... [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html
- vortico 11y ago
- tptacek 11y agoPaging 'DannyBee.
- coldcode 11y agoAnd how do you define when it requires attribution and what % constitutes a change and how do you calculate such a %? Also what if I the author put a different license on my answer, which is it?
- preinheimer 11y agoMany posts turn into copy/pastes of solutions found elsewhere. A direct result of: 1) not allowing answers that are just links to elsewhere, regardless of how appropriate or canonical the resource and 2) a mad dash to answer first to maximize internet points (karma). Will they start policing their own platform for copyright woes?
- Shog9 11y ago1) broken links are kind of a big problem. http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300916/i-estimate-10-of-the-links-posted-here-are-dead-how-do-we-deal-with-them http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300916/i-estimate-10... 2) plagiarism (regardless of copyright) is strongly discouraged. http://stackoverflow.com/help/referencing http://stackoverflow.com/help/referencing
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mc808 11y agoLegal and ethical issues aside, if I'm straight-up copying code from Stack Overflow, it's probably because I don't quite understand it, so I'm going to keep a link to the question (and pray that it doesn't get deleted for being non-constructive) just for future reference. Shame, shame, I know.
- carbocation 11y agoAlternatively, you might have copied and pasted because it's so short and common that there isn't really another way to do it.
- such_a_casual 11y agoLicensing knowledge is insane. If copyright is ever crippled, we will see a cultural renaissance.
- greggman 11y agoWhy can't SO just say, "If you post code here it's public domain" (or some other license that says no action required, no attribution required, copy at will) I've posted quite a bit of code on SO. I don't want attribution. That is not my goal. That's is an anti-goal for me. I don't want to make it harder to use code in my code. I want to make it easier. I don't even want a link back to SO. Sure if I write some 1000+ line library on github I might want attribution but I have no such desire on SO. Am I a rare case? Do most SO contributors want attribution?
- NKCSS 11y agoI don't see a problem here, I already put SO links in my code whenever I use something from SO; example: /// <summary> /// Special JsonConvert resolver that allows you to ignore properties. See http://stackoverflow.com/a/13588192/1037948 /// </summary> or: //SOURCE: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9/how-do-i-calculate-someones-age-in-c
- greggman 11y agoDo you do the same anytime you ask a co-worker a question: Jim: "Hey Marge, do you know how to escape a flarb?" Marge: "Yea, call FlarbLib.EscapeFlarb" Jim: "Ok" // <summary> // From Marge // </summary> string escapedFlarb = FlarbLib.EscapeFlarb(unescapedFlarb); I guess I see stack overflow as just an extension of asking a co-worker. It's just the internet lets us all be co-workers remotely. Sure if it's some details answer that says why you're doing something a certain way (like must use 2.0 SDK because 3.0 is broken on Linux. See http://so/1234 http://so/1234 But otherwise it seems crazy to me to have it litter the code with attributions for tiny snippets of answers.
- stuaxo 11y agoUrg, I really want an antilicense, for SO or any tutorial that is out there. If I use things off SO I link back to them, out of courtesy to future developers. This is a problem that needs to be solved though, too many tutorials have code under restrictive licenses, and it doesn't make sense to me.
- dTal 11y agoWhat do you mean by an antilicense? If you don't want to impose any restrictions on people, just put your code in the public domain. Here's some boilerplate for that: http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/ But you can't expect everyone to do that. Considering people who exercise their rights under copyright a "problem that needs to be solved" is generally regarded as a... radical stance.
- kochb 11y agoQuick back story, attribution required is new in this proposal, the previous proposal did not require it leading to notable objections: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/271080/180500 http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/271080/180500 I'm very much in the "who cares, I put my code there to be used" camp, but attribution is turning out to be surprisingly divisive.
- X-Istence 11y agoWhen I post code samples on Stack Overflow I want them to be freely useable, under the MIT license. However I don't want nor require attribution. In other words, I am perfectly fine with someone using my code on SO for any purpose what so ever. This attribution required nonsense is annoying. I freely share my knowledge, anyone can use it, I would expect the same from everyone else that posts their code.
- mijoharas 11y agoThe MIT licence does require attribution[0][1] [0] https://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/218331/what-are-the-requirements-for-attribution-in-the-mit-license https://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/218331/what-... [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
- detaro 11y agoSo you don't want the MIT license, but something like CC0.
- dineshp2 11y agoI find this move by the Stack Exchange network annoying and it seems like they are trying to cash in on the monopoly that they have built up recently as the ultimate Q&A site for developers(and others maybe). On a more serious(or lighter) note, how about building a similar website as the Stack Exchange network without the new licensing restrictions and a better UI to begin with and launch before March 1,2016? It's an oppurtunistic time to cash in on this unpopular licensing requirement. A new startup idea maybe?
- fabian2k 11y agoThe code is already licensed under CC-BY-SA. This change makes the license more liberal, it doesn't add any new restrictions.
- dineshp2 11y agoBut now attribution is required to the code used from stackoverflow.com or other sites under the Stack Exchange network.
- finnn 11y agoCC-BY-SA requires attribution...
- dineshp2 11y agoThe reason for the introduction of this new license is because of the ambiguity of using CC-BY-SA license for code. It is specifically mentioned in the discussion on Stack Exchange that, under the new terms attribution is required whereas under the old proposal attribution is required only upon request of the copyright holder with regard to code. My knowledge on this subject is limited, so please correct me if I am wrong.
- lorenzhs 11y agoold proposal != old license. Previously, all content was licensed under CC-BY-SA (the "BY" part means "attribution required" and "SA" is share-alike, essentially a copyleft that's incompatible even with the GPL). They then suggested "MIT but without the attribution" which didn't go down well with some people, so now they're suggesting "MIT but you don't need to paste the license into the code", meaning that the code is MIT licensed but it's enough if you put the URL of the stackoverflow answer in a comment. The new license (basically MIT) is a lot more permissive than the old one (CC-BY-SA), which was compatible with virtually no open source license and just doesn't make a lot of sense for code.
- j_s 11y agoFunny to see the post at -100 points! One key portion of the discussion in case anyone missed it: What is reasonable attribution? A URL as a comment in your code is reasonable attribution.
- dhimes 11y agoSo link rot in my code is ok, but not on their site?
- scottdw2 11y agoThis seems to be, quite obviously, an attempt at free marketing. They want to be able to point at the corpus of products influenced by SO, and say "see, we're pretty cool". Seems misguided to me.
- detaro 11y agoWhat does this require more than the previous rules that makes it an "attempt at free marketing"?
- dschiptsov 11y agoForced attribution as a new way of SEO?
- SeanDav 11y agoAn obvious problem (and one that was highlighted but seemingly ignored) is that you require a significant amount of reputation on Meta in order to get the ability to down-vote something proposed on Meta - i.e. the proposed licence changes. You can only earn this by gaining reputation on Meta itself, so even if you are a prolific and highly rated contributor to other Stackexchange sites you may well have not been able to down vote the proposal, even if you wanted to. This is obviously going to skew any voting decision in favour of the upvotes. so the 85% approval rating for the changes may not have been anything like that. In any case, it appears that many of the upvotes were by people approving the idea that the licence terms needed to be re-evaluated, not they necessarily approved of the licence changes as proposed at the time. In fact, by far, the most heavily upvoted individual comments were very much against the proposed changes.
- sergiotapia 11y agoAnd the chickens come home to roost. This is their end-game. What a shame they're going to piss it all away.
- appleflaxen 11y agoAre you referring to something that happened in the past? What is the context to your comment?
- ahmedfromtunis 11y agoPeople, are you telling me that you are copy/paste-ing snippets from SO to your production codebases? Really?
- LoSboccacc 11y agowait "Code contributed prior to March 1 will be governed by the CC BY-SA license >>> as it has always been <<<." (emphasis mine) sky isn't falling. attribution was always there, or so it seems according to that part of the post (I'm like, in the overall 10%, and never noticed) . if anything, requiring a link is a simplification over CC attribution style. am I missing something?
- sambrand 11y agoNope.
- 746F7475 11y agoSo, are people actually using code on SO as is? At least I only use it to learn how to use something and then adapt it to my needs. Surely this is my code and doesn't require any attribution or whatever?
- santiagobasulto 11y agoBest comment I've read: "I'm going to just start putting an ingredient list on my projects. _This software is made with 45% Stack Overflow recycled content_"
- antaviana 11y agoI think it will be interesting for the SEO team at StackOverflow to see if getting a bunch of links from Github, BitBucket, and other code hosting services, impacts positively their SEO or not.
- sambrand 11y agoI work at Stack Overflow. We don't have an SEO team. We don't care about this at all.
- mark_l_watson 11y agoI used a snippet of stackoverflow posted code in an example in my last book. Adding a one line attribution comment with the stackoverflow user's name seemed like such a natural thing to do that I did it almost on autopilot. This is a good license change.
- michaeloder 11y agoIf Stack Overflow wants attribution to happen in practice, they should facilitate it by adding a copy to clipboard button that would automatically add the desired attribution to code blocks. This would have an order of magnitude greater impact on the actual amount of attribution taking place than simply clarifying the licensing terms. That being said, I am concerned that the requirement for attribution creates significant legal landmines for anyone who doesn't follow the practice and many users of the service will not be aware of the requirement or it's potential legal impact. It would be safer to move to an MIT license without attribution, but request attribution as a courtesy.
- dhimes 11y agoIt would be safer to move to an MIT license without attribution, but request attribution as a courtesy. Not just courtesy, but work to make it part of the culture. It should be. It is among professionally trained scientists and engineers, and this culture should be propagated into the self-learning crowd. IMO changing the license is the wrong way to go.
- jrcii 11y agoAll source code that's available to me falls under the "I'll do whatever I want with it" License unless it's related to work for a high-profile client. Most of the time these licensing debates and discussions are an abstract philosophical matter in my life, not a practical one.