Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I want to ask a question on Stack Overflow but before I post code, I want to make sure the license I want to use (which is similar to many Open Source licenses) is compatible with Stack Exchange sites.

I glanced through Do I have to worry about copyright issues for code posted on Stack Overflow? and What is up with the source code license on Stack Overflow? but they seem to imply that I should use a CC Wiki kind of license. Am I allowed to post code to Stack Exchange sites using this license?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Brad Mace, jonsca, Mark Trapp, Yannis, Sathya Aug 13 '12 at 4:55

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I choose to believe that you posted this question in good faith (no pun intended) . What parts of this license do you feel are incompatible with the CC-Wiki license? Though it doesn't seem like much of a source code license at all. It looks incomplete, and when complete, really meant to cover prose documents. – Michael Petrotta Aug 13 '12 at 4:35
We are not attorneys and are not qualified to give you legal advice in any way. Consult an attorney for actual legal advice, or yourself if you are an attorney (since you wrote the license). SE's license is CC-BY-SA, for your reference. – waiwai933 Aug 13 '12 at 4:37
"as long as the entire covered documents including spelling errors [...] are kept intact" - whoa. – Mat Aug 13 '12 at 4:38
What the world needs is yet another non dfsg compliant license. – Flexo Aug 13 '12 at 6:13
@waiwai933 - You take the easy answer. I seem to see that a lot on StackExchange... – Shawn Eary Aug 17 '12 at 2:19
@Petrotta - Yes. The license is incomplete. I can't afford a lawyer. I thought Sam Williams mentioned in Chapter 5 of "Free as in Freedom" that Stallman thought there were three categories of works: functional, testimonial and diary-like. I further thought Stallman believed that testimonial and diary-like works should not be modified. While Stallman seems to view Source Code as functional, what would be the implications of me publishing Source Code in a diary like format? If I could publish my code in diary format, then maybe I can impose such restrictions of non-modification. – Shawn Eary Aug 17 '12 at 2:32

All contributions on Stack Exchange are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license, and by posting code on Stack Overflow you agree to be bound by the terms of that license.

Furthermore, until you get your license approved by the Open Source Initiative, please avoid calling it open source, or even partially open source.

share|improve this answer
-1 for taking the bait – Brad Mace Aug 13 '12 at 4:48
@BradMace I was wondering who down voted ;) I must say it's a fair down vote, but I was accused fairly recently of not assuming good faith (pun intended) and I thought I'd go for it. – Yannis Aug 13 '12 at 4:51
@Brad Mace - If you are categorizing my post as "bait," then I think you are being overly harsh. – Shawn Eary Aug 17 '12 at 2:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .