4 ms·

Also ban StackOverflow and nearly any text book in the field. The reality is that programmers are going to see other programmers code.

by luma 1y ago

neilv 1y ago
Huge difference, and companies recognized the difference, right up until "AI" hype.
timeon 1y ago
How is that same thing?
JoshTriplett 1y ago
"see" and "copy" are two different things. It's fine to look at StackOverflow to understand the solution to a problem. It's not fine to copy and paste from StackOverflow and ignore its license or attribution. Content on StackOverflow is under CC-by-sa, version depends on the date it was submitted: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing . (It's really unfortunate that they didn't pick license compatible with code; at one point they started to move to the MIT license for code, but then didn't follow through on it.)
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  CC BY-SA 4.0 is "compatible with code". It is, for example, GPL-compatible (see https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibili...). It's just not designed for code.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    That's a fair distinction. For the specific case of CC-by-sa 4.0, it's possible to convert to GPLv3. That doesn't help with prior versions of CC-by-sa. So, for the specific case of material contributed to StackOverflow on or after 2018-05-02, it's possible to use it under GPLv3 (including appropriate attribution), so any project compatible with GPLv3 can copy it with attribution. Any material before that point is not safe to copy.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      It does help with prior versions, since you can use CC BY-SA 3.0 material under CC BY-SA 4.0, which is GPLv3-compatible. (See https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337742/308065 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337742/308065.) It doesn't necessarily help with future versions.
      - JoshTriplett 1y ago
        I stand corrected, thank you! I forgot that CC-by-sa included an automatic upgrade clause, unlike many other licenses that require an explicit "or any later version" to do that.
Hamuko 1y ago
There's a reason why clean-room reverse engineering exists and it's to ensure that you can't commit copyright infringement by knowing about the code you are trying to reimplement.
nitwit005 1y ago
> The reality is that programmers are going to see other programmers code. You're certainly correct. It's also true that companies are going to sue over it. There's no reason to make yourself an easy lawsuit target, if it's trivial to avoid it.

Also ban StackOverflow and nearly any text book in the field. The reality is that programmers are going to see other programmers code.

by luma 1y ago

Also ban StackOverflow and nearly any text book in the field. The reality is that programmers are going to see other programmers code.

neilv 1y ago

Huge difference, and companies recognized the difference, right up until "AI" hype.

timeon 1y ago

How is that same thing?

JoshTriplett 1y ago

"see" and "copy" are two different things. It's fine to look at StackOverflow to understand the solution to a problem. It's not fine to copy and paste from StackOverflow and ignore its license or attribution. Content on StackOverflow is under CC-by-sa, version depends on the date it was submitted: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing . (It's really unfortunate that they didn't pick license compatible with code; at one point they started to move to the MIT license for code, but then didn't follow through on it.)

wizzwizz4 1y ago
CC BY-SA 4.0 is "compatible with code". It is, for example, GPL-compatible (see https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility:_GPLv3 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibili...). It's just not designed for code.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  That's a fair distinction. For the specific case of CC-by-sa 4.0, it's possible to convert to GPLv3. That doesn't help with prior versions of CC-by-sa. So, for the specific case of material contributed to StackOverflow on or after 2018-05-02, it's possible to use it under GPLv3 (including appropriate attribution), so any project compatible with GPLv3 can copy it with attribution. Any material before that point is not safe to copy.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    It does help with prior versions, since you can use CC BY-SA 3.0 material under CC BY-SA 4.0, which is GPLv3-compatible. (See https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337742/308065 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337742/308065.) It doesn't necessarily help with future versions.
    - JoshTriplett 1y ago
      I stand corrected, thank you! I forgot that CC-by-sa included an automatic upgrade clause, unlike many other licenses that require an explicit "or any later version" to do that.

Hamuko 1y ago

There's a reason why clean-room reverse engineering exists and it's to ensure that you can't commit copyright infringement by knowing about the code you are trying to reimplement.

nitwit005 1y ago

> The reality is that programmers are going to see other programmers code. You're certainly correct. It's also true that companies are going to sue over it. There's no reason to make yourself an easy lawsuit target, if it's trivial to avoid it.