3 ms·

Problem is when “your code” isn’t yours but your employers. Don’t get me wrong this is not a new problem, but you should be aware that simply linking the answe

by o-__-o 5y ago

Problem is when “your code” isn’t yours but your employers. Don’t get me wrong this is not a new problem, but you should be aware that simply linking the answer to a comment (esp in a closed source code base) isn’t sufficient

lucb1e 5y ago
On first glance I think you're wrong, but if you think I am then please tell me more! The stackoverflow license requires attribution and share-alike, so: (1) there is a comment for the attribution, and (2) anyone who sees the code knows they can re-use it because I mention the license for that part of the code. Some licenses also require the binary or derivative works (e.g. rendered webpages) to reproduce a notice to any users, is that a thing with creative commons? I thought CC was for non-code licenses and, as far as I know, the binary showing a notice is not a thing CC specifies. Looking up the summary page[1] on their website, it says I must provide "appropriate attribution" which is a pop-over that specifies it as: > you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material I wasn't aware of the required disclaimer notice so it's good that I double-checked, but I do meet the other requirements. Though it's also quite rare that I really copy something as substantial as a whole function, it's not like this is a weekly occurrence. But I'd love to know if I'm doing it wrong, in case you still read this! [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- o-__-o 5y ago
  If you put this in your software as John Doe committer/employee then your employer is now in violation of the CC license since it is not properly attributed. Just being in your source code is not enough, especially if you redistribute binaries or other obfuscated manners of packaged code. A lot of shops I have worked for in the past have compiled license attributions for all included works. Imagine if this CC license was excluded! Thus you copy and pasting code from stack overflow in your day to day coding as an employee opens your employer up to liability. This is just like looking at GPLv3 code saying “yep that makes sense” and then copy and pasting that. You are copying the license with the text and tainting your future code base if you do not have the right to alter the existing license. now with that said It’s highly unlikely this would ever be pursued at all or if it is, then swiftly settled out of court. But never underestimate legal trolls with nothing better to do Ps this was in the context of employee/employer for-hire development. If you have the ability to attribute code as required either because this is a personal project or you are founder of said business then please disregard. My example was for jr Suzy F DevMcFace working for BigSoullessEvilCorp(TM)

by o-__-o 5y ago

lucb1e 5y ago

On first glance I think you're wrong, but if you think I am then please tell me more! The stackoverflow license requires attribution and share-alike, so: (1) there is a comment for the attribution, and (2) anyone who sees the code knows they can re-use it because I mention the license for that part of the code. Some licenses also require the binary or derivative works (e.g. rendered webpages) to reproduce a notice to any users, is that a thing with creative commons? I thought CC was for non-code licenses and, as far as I know, the binary showing a notice is not a thing CC specifies. Looking up the summary page[1] on their website, it says I must provide "appropriate attribution" which is a pop-over that specifies it as: > you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material I wasn't aware of the required disclaimer notice so it's good that I double-checked, but I do meet the other requirements. Though it's also quite rare that I really copy something as substantial as a whole function, it's not like this is a weekly occurrence. But I'd love to know if I'm doing it wrong, in case you still read this! [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

o-__-o 5y ago
If you put this in your software as John Doe committer/employee then your employer is now in violation of the CC license since it is not properly attributed. Just being in your source code is not enough, especially if you redistribute binaries or other obfuscated manners of packaged code. A lot of shops I have worked for in the past have compiled license attributions for all included works. Imagine if this CC license was excluded! Thus you copy and pasting code from stack overflow in your day to day coding as an employee opens your employer up to liability. This is just like looking at GPLv3 code saying “yep that makes sense” and then copy and pasting that. You are copying the license with the text and tainting your future code base if you do not have the right to alter the existing license. now with that said It’s highly unlikely this would ever be pursued at all or if it is, then swiftly settled out of court. But never underestimate legal trolls with nothing better to do Ps this was in the context of employee/employer for-hire development. If you have the ability to attribute code as required either because this is a personal project or you are founder of said business then please disregard. My example was for jr Suzy F DevMcFace working for BigSoullessEvilCorp(TM)