5 ms·
"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 Stac
by 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 agoCC 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 agoThat'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 agoIt 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 agoI 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.