5 ms·

C++ cannot be greater than C... Because the ++ is post-increment He created a great language though -- And agreed on the linking: every snippet on stackoverf

C++ cannot be greater than C... Because the ++ is post-increment He created a great language though -- And agreed on the linking: every snippet on stackoverflow is effectively gpl Requiring attribution/license change --- Unless you've already hyperlinked every author name, stackoverflow, + the page it came from, AND those links are not nofollow https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/ https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/ ""Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 4.0 with attribution required."" EDIT: see cc by-sa text. It considers itself gpl equivalent

gpderetta 7y ago
> Everything on stackoverflow is gpl > [...] > ""Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 4.0 with attribution required."" You literally said it isn't two sentences later!
- tsegratis 7y ago
  cc by-sa 4.0 is copy left, compatible only with gpl and one other license So your code must become gpl, or something equivalent Sorry for not being clearer, you are right to question. May I make that prior post explicit?
  - gpderetta 7y ago
    Fair enough.
greggman2 7y ago
IANAL but I put in my S.O. profile that all my contributions are public domain / CC0. I suppose that makes them dual licensed?
- woodrowbarlow 7y ago
  nope, because when you post content on SO, you are transferring ownership of that content to stack overflow. you don't own it anymore, so you can't license it. > All materials displayed or performed on the public Network, including but not limited to text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, and animations (collectively “Network Content”) (other than Network Content posted by individual “Subscriber Content”) are the property of Stack Overflow and/or third parties and are protected by United States and international copyright laws (“Stack Overflow Content”). https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service#licensing https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service#licensing of course, if your answer replicates content from another source that you link to in your answer, that other source still owns the content. so perhaps if you self-publish first and then replicate and link to your original source, you might be able to side-step this and license the original source as you like.
  - gpderetta 7y ago
    They might claim they own the content, doesn't mean they do.
  - wool_gather 7y ago
    No, this is incorrect. Note "(other than Network Content posted by individual “Subscriber Content”)"; this refers to the stuff that users create and post. See the "Subscriber Content" heading below. You license the content you create to them: > any and all content [...] that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”) is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow You still own the copyright to what you've written.
    - woodrowbarlow 7y ago
      oh, that's great news! thank you for correcting me.
cdirkx 7y ago
Note that there is some discussion [1] surrounding this licensing, as the content was orinally under cc by-sa 3.0 and recently (begin September) relicensed to 4.0. The concern is if Stack Exchange Inc has the right to unilaterally and retroactively relicense the content. [1] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333615/will-concerns-regarding-the-move-to-cc-by-sa-4-0-elicit-any-further-dialogue-fro https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333615/will-concern...

gpderetta 7y ago

> Everything on stackoverflow is gpl > [...] > ""Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 4.0 with attribution required."" You literally said it isn't two sentences later!

tsegratis 7y ago
cc by-sa 4.0 is copy left, compatible only with gpl and one other license So your code must become gpl, or something equivalent Sorry for not being clearer, you are right to question. May I make that prior post explicit?
- gpderetta 7y ago
  Fair enough.

greggman2 7y ago

IANAL but I put in my S.O. profile that all my contributions are public domain / CC0. I suppose that makes them dual licensed?

woodrowbarlow 7y ago
nope, because when you post content on SO, you are transferring ownership of that content to stack overflow. you don't own it anymore, so you can't license it. > All materials displayed or performed on the public Network, including but not limited to text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, and animations (collectively “Network Content”) (other than Network Content posted by individual “Subscriber Content”) are the property of Stack Overflow and/or third parties and are protected by United States and international copyright laws (“Stack Overflow Content”). https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service#licensing https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service#licensing of course, if your answer replicates content from another source that you link to in your answer, that other source still owns the content. so perhaps if you self-publish first and then replicate and link to your original source, you might be able to side-step this and license the original source as you like.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  They might claim they own the content, doesn't mean they do.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  No, this is incorrect. Note "(other than Network Content posted by individual “Subscriber Content”)"; this refers to the stuff that users create and post. See the "Subscriber Content" heading below. You license the content you create to them: > any and all content [...] that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”) is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow You still own the copyright to what you've written.
  - woodrowbarlow 7y ago
    oh, that's great news! thank you for correcting me.

cdirkx 7y ago

Note that there is some discussion [1] surrounding this licensing, as the content was orinally under cc by-sa 3.0 and recently (begin September) relicensed to 4.0. The concern is if Stack Exchange Inc has the right to unilaterally and retroactively relicense the content. [1] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333615/will-concerns-regarding-the-move-to-cc-by-sa-4-0-elicit-any-further-dialogue-fro https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333615/will-concern...