2 ms·
I'm a big conflicted about that as well. I think I'm ok with it as long as they have permission/cooperation from the author (a cursory glance looks like they d
by doorhammer 13y ago
I'm a big conflicted about that as well.
I think I'm ok with it as long as they have permission/cooperation from the author (a cursory glance looks like they do; could be wrong), especially since the introduction of inline code evaluation makes it so much easier to get into. I know the content probably would have gone into my bottomless "to read later" bookmarks folder if I couldn't knock some stuff out right then and there.
Thinking about it, I guess that's just a licensing issue. Give the author the tools they need to decide how their work can and can't be used.
- aninhumer 13y agoSchool of Haskell is actually a website where people can create their own tutorials, so most likely the author added it themselves. (EDIT: I just checked, they were created by user Yann Esposito, which most likely belongs to the author.) Furthermore, while FPComplete are commercial, I don't believe they're monetising SoH in any way, other than its being good marketing for the company and Haskell in general.
- doorhammer 13y agoI thought it might be something along those lines. Just didn't have much time to look around. I would say, though, that it should be (and really is) up to the author where their work can or can't be displayed. I think it would be good for the community either way, but if an author doesn't want their work in any way tied to a commercial interest, then it's their right to apply licensing in such a way to ensure that, and for others to respect that (though I'm not saying you're implying otherwise; just clarifying). The monetization here would be brand exposure and site traffic to the domain/website, using the works of others (which I'm not inherently against).