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

In this suggested edit I noted that the SIGAR library is now licensed under Apache v2 and not GPL as is currently mentioned by the answer. Normally I would leave a comment in the answer hoping that the user who posted the answer might edit in the update, but in this case that user hasn't logged in to SE for 4 years. Did the way I posted the suggestion actually change anything in the meaning of the original post? If so what is the best way to post such an update?

share|improve this question
This is a tough case. Personally I think that specifying the license itself is sorta pointless to the contents of the post - in most scenarios I don't care so much about the license until I know the code works. I do agree with the edit being rejected - but I could understand it passing as well. – Richard J. Ross III Feb 12 '13 at 7:00
@RichardJ.RossIII when writing commercial software alot of people stay away from GPL licensed code. I agree that license information shouldn't be part of the post unless the question particularly asked about it, but in this case it was and the license information in the post is out of date. Even if we agree it shouldn't be there, if it is, it should at the very least be currently correct. – vikki Feb 12 '13 at 7:26
I well understand the ramifications of using open-source code. In reality, if I run into a situation where I find code that will do what I need it to, but doesn't have an applicable license, then I will simply analyze the code to determine which underlying functions I need to call. At any rate, the license probably should be removed entirely, as it is subject to rot. – Richard J. Ross III Feb 12 '13 at 8:00
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Correcting a factual mistake that is not a crucial element of the post is definitely a good thing. It's even more clear-cut when the answer was correct but some minor part of it needs to be updated: yes, please do update. In a case like this one, you don't need to leave a comment, go ahead and edit the information in.

Your edit was a good idea in spirit but not in execution, because it breaks the flow of the answer. That the license has changed at some point is extremely minor information, but with your suggestion it's the most prominent part of the post. Just change the sentence that needs changing, and be sure to explain that the situation changed in the edit description.

Never add something like “Update: XXX” when you edit somebody's post: either it can be integrated in the flow of the text (that's the case here), or it should be a comment (that's what the reviewers who rejected your edit decided, with just reason).

share|improve this answer
Duly noted. Thanx – vikki Feb 13 '13 at 18:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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