Timeline for Re-using ideas or small pieces of code from stackoverflow.com
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Apr 25, 2014 at 21:57 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @Gil: If you want to reuse code under different licensing terms, just ask the author of that code. Copyright remains with the author, and they can choose to dual license or anything else. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 21:54 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @GilYehuda I can't clarify that because it's not. This isn't a site for releasing open source projects, it's a site for questions and answers. All content is CC-BY-SA. I think you're reading a lot in to the author's intent that just isn't there. If they want to release their code under some other license they'd post it on a site created for that purpose. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 21:00 | comment | added | Gil Yehuda | @BilltheLizard, of course not. But it does impose other restrictions that I do not believe are an accurate representation of the author's intent. Most code authors I know seems to want to share and have you either apply a WTFPL or an MIT-style license (to get credit for their code). Some prefer the LGPL or GPL if they have philosophical leanings against proprietary code. But CC-Wiki is neither, as I explained above. CC is great for content, but code is not content. I wish you'd clarify the licence on the content is CC, but the license on the code is something more suitable for code. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 20:55 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @GilYehuda The CC-BY-SA license doesn't prevent you from crediting the author. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 20:53 | comment | added | Gil Yehuda | I understand that most code here is not runable by intent, but SO's license means that no code is. When I see code that was cut/paste from SO (and I do see such code in production apps since I scan for it), I see that I must remove that code from the source. I think this is a shame, since the author's intent to share is not being supported by SO's license that actually restricts it, even in cases where the author does share runable code. I would gladly credit the author and use the code if s/he used an open source license. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 20:34 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @GilYehuda Most answers aren't code that you copy/paste, compile, and run. They have explanatory text. That content is why SO uses the CC-BY-SA license. I don't think it's the case that people are sharing code that they expect to be used verbatim here. They're sharing knowledge. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 20:22 | comment | added | Gil Yehuda | Bill (final) According to 4d, I'm restricted from adding a comment saying the code is poorly written. Can I redistribute my app under a commercial licence? Can I put it on the Apple iStore without violating 4a "You may not impose any effective technological measures." I'm not a lawyer, but it sure seems that CC was created for "content" (text, pictures, plays, music) and not for "source code" (that is designed to be compiled and included as a part of a larger work). Seems that people want to share their code so that it could be used in real life apps, not just read as instructive ideas. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 20:21 | comment | added | Gil Yehuda | Bill (cont) I now have to take "reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work" (3b), and to do so "in all media and formats" (3) -- which I think means I have to add the attribution the binary's UI and comment any code changes I make, or I'm violating a copyright! I think I'd also be violating 4b if my code is compiled and I don't let you reverse engineer my app. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 20:20 | comment | added | Gil Yehuda | Bill, if I take code verbatim from SO and put it in my mobile application, then distribute the app to my customers, what obligations must I satisfy? If the code was Open Source licensed, it's well understood. Since the code is CC-Wiki licensed its a problem. According to the license, I may have adapted the work (1a) depending on how that is interpreted in the relevant jurisdiction, and distributed it (1d) since it's a mobile app. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 19:06 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @GilYehuda Why do you think it's undesirable legally to use code from Stack Overflow? | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 18:59 | comment | added | Gil Yehuda | Bill can you clarify why you don't have to attribute the use of SO code in your app's documentation or UI? If SO had used a proper Open Source license for its code (instead of a documentation license), like MIT or BSD, we would have to include attribution in the source and binary. Using the CC-WIKI license, SO makes using code from this site very undesirable legally -- which seems to be the opposite of the contributors' intent. Why not just use a real open source license and make this site really open for sharing? | |
| Mar 17, 2013 at 5:21 | comment | added | Geoff Oxberry | Fair use doctrine states that length is not a factor. If you plan on sharing or distributing your code at all, the viral nature of the CC-BY-SA license dictates that the entire work falls under that license. If you want to share your work, but don't want it to fall under that license, you should not use code from SO directly. Ideas and concepts aren't covered under the license, so presumably, if you understand what code does, you can reimplement it yourself. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 20:51 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @Roel, you asked for further clarification that you wouldn't have to release your software under the "share alike" clause. I'd reiterate that it sounds like the type of excerpting you're describing would be fair use of a quote or excerpt, which would not require that, but it's impossible to say for sure, as it's an interpretation of what constitutes legitimate excerpting. | |
| Jul 31, 2012 at 21:11 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @Roel, you asked for a company confirmation, so here it is: While it's not legally necessary, to be on the really safe side, I'd encourage you to include some kind of attribution of the source in a source code comment, as Bill suggests. But yes, you may absolutely use code snippets (excerpts) in your code without public attribution, as long as you aren't publishing it somewhere. | |
| Jul 18, 2012 at 11:06 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Roel I don't think so. I think that only applies when you're republishing the code or someone's explanation of some code on a blog, in a book, etc. Using code you find here as a guide to getting your own software to work shouldn't require you to release your software itself under the same license. If it did, most of us would be in violation. | |
| Jul 18, 2012 at 3:32 | comment | added | Roel Van de Paar | Bill, thank you - that clarifies. So I assume the "Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." part of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license does not apply to the limited use ("reading code snippets from Stack Overflow and using them to make your software work") we discussed here? | |
| Jul 18, 2012 at 3:28 | vote | accept | Roel Van de Paar | ||
| Jul 13, 2012 at 18:08 | comment | added | JimmyPena |
+1 for but it would be a good idea (mostly for your own benefit) to document where that code came from in a source code comment
|
|
| Jul 13, 2012 at 15:19 | history | answered | Bill the LizardMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |