5 ms·

That’s nuts. Sometimes if I find a weird hack solution on S/O, I’ll add a comment that permalinks to the thread that fixed it in order to prevent a Chestertons

That’s nuts. Sometimes if I find a weird hack solution on S/O, I’ll add a comment that permalinks to the thread that fixed it in order to prevent a Chestertons fence problem. Maybe I should stop doing that?

lionkor 3y ago
SO content is public domain, so not usually a problem Edit: I stand corrected, its not public domain.
- shagie 3y ago
  SO content is NOT public domain. It is CC BY-SA (some version). This requires attribution. > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. Additionally, the province of code on Stack Overflow is not always clean. It is quite possible to find code on SO that was originally under a GPL license without the necessary "this is GPL code" (and really shouldn't be on SO because of license laundering in the first place).
  - lionkor 3y ago
    Oh, okay, sorry - my mistake. I have yet to use SO code anywhere, only been doing this for a few years, so I havent looked into it more.
  - parpfish 3y ago
    what if it's not code per se but more like "if you see this error, make sure to use this flag/change the value of this parameter"?
    - shagie 3y ago
      If you copy those exact words, that's copyrighted and under a CC license. If you follow the instructions, you're completely fine since how you do that is up to you. This is covered under the idea–expression dichotomy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction ). It is the expression of an idea - not the idea itself - that is copyrightable. I can paint a picture of a red house on a wooded hillside with a snow capped mountain in the background. My painting is copyrighted. You can paint the same thing based on the the same description. I can't copyright the idea of the red house on a wooded hillside with a snow capped mountain in the background (I can copyright the text, but that text likely lacks sufficient originality). Likewise, I can't copyright the idea of how to fix a problem. I can copyright some particular code that fixes that problem. I can copyright the text that describes how to fix the problem - but I can't copyright the idea. Creative Commons, GPL, and the rest of the FOSS licenses all deal with copyrights - not ideas. If you do want to protect an idea, that is in the domain of a patent. "This particular arrangement of latches and levers solves the problem of how to open the back of a truck with minimal force" - that idea of the arrangement of latches and levers is patentable.
  - pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
    Worst of all, Stack Overflow code may also come from a country which isn’t even divided into provinces.
  - maxloh 3y ago
    I once heard that some one liners in SO are not enough to be copyrightable. Is that correct?
    - shagie 3y ago
      That is based on the question "do they meat the threshold of originality?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality > The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of something new, as in patent protection). This most often comes into play with graphics works, but is applicable to anything that may be copyrighted. There are one liners are not sufficiently creative in their creation to warrant copy protection. However, note that this is a very low bar.
      - trhr 3y ago
        The bar is more like "Coke can sue you for wearing a red shirt." That doesn't mean they'll win, but they _can_ sue you.
        shagie 3y ago
        That's a design patent for trade dress - not a copyright. https://issuu.com/bidc-blog/docs/0717-018_bidc_blog_-_trademarking_c https://issuu.com/bidc-blog/docs/0717-018_bidc_blog_-_tradem... https://www.rd.com/article/coca-cola-logo-red/ https://www.rd.com/article/coca-cola-logo-red/
        trhr 3y ago
        I can sue you for disagreeing with me. Tortuous malignment. Do you not understand how the legal system works? I couldn't prove tortuous malignment. You haven't accused me of committing a crime or something. I haven't lost income as a result of it. So I wouldn't win, but I could sue.

lionkor 3y ago

SO content is public domain, so not usually a problem Edit: I stand corrected, its not public domain.

shagie 3y ago
SO content is NOT public domain. It is CC BY-SA (some version). This requires attribution. > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. Additionally, the province of code on Stack Overflow is not always clean. It is quite possible to find code on SO that was originally under a GPL license without the necessary "this is GPL code" (and really shouldn't be on SO because of license laundering in the first place).
- lionkor 3y ago
  Oh, okay, sorry - my mistake. I have yet to use SO code anywhere, only been doing this for a few years, so I havent looked into it more.
- parpfish 3y ago
  what if it's not code per se but more like "if you see this error, make sure to use this flag/change the value of this parameter"?
  - shagie 3y ago
    If you copy those exact words, that's copyrighted and under a CC license. If you follow the instructions, you're completely fine since how you do that is up to you. This is covered under the idea–expression dichotomy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction ). It is the expression of an idea - not the idea itself - that is copyrightable. I can paint a picture of a red house on a wooded hillside with a snow capped mountain in the background. My painting is copyrighted. You can paint the same thing based on the the same description. I can't copyright the idea of the red house on a wooded hillside with a snow capped mountain in the background (I can copyright the text, but that text likely lacks sufficient originality). Likewise, I can't copyright the idea of how to fix a problem. I can copyright some particular code that fixes that problem. I can copyright the text that describes how to fix the problem - but I can't copyright the idea. Creative Commons, GPL, and the rest of the FOSS licenses all deal with copyrights - not ideas. If you do want to protect an idea, that is in the domain of a patent. "This particular arrangement of latches and levers solves the problem of how to open the back of a truck with minimal force" - that idea of the arrangement of latches and levers is patentable.
- pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
  Worst of all, Stack Overflow code may also come from a country which isn’t even divided into provinces.
- maxloh 3y ago
  I once heard that some one liners in SO are not enough to be copyrightable. Is that correct?
  - shagie 3y ago
    That is based on the question "do they meat the threshold of originality?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality > The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of something new, as in patent protection). This most often comes into play with graphics works, but is applicable to anything that may be copyrighted. There are one liners are not sufficiently creative in their creation to warrant copy protection. However, note that this is a very low bar.
    - trhr 3y ago
      The bar is more like "Coke can sue you for wearing a red shirt." That doesn't mean they'll win, but they _can_ sue you.
      - shagie 3y ago
        That's a design patent for trade dress - not a copyright. https://issuu.com/bidc-blog/docs/0717-018_bidc_blog_-_trademarking_c https://issuu.com/bidc-blog/docs/0717-018_bidc_blog_-_tradem... https://www.rd.com/article/coca-cola-logo-red/ https://www.rd.com/article/coca-cola-logo-red/
        trhr 3y ago
        I can sue you for disagreeing with me. Tortuous malignment. Do you not understand how the legal system works? I couldn't prove tortuous malignment. You haven't accused me of committing a crime or something. I haven't lost income as a result of it. So I wouldn't win, but I could sue.