Timeline for Can we have a dropdown to choose a code license?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 9:52 | comment | added | Anko | I'm accepting this answer for now because it summarises the discussion well. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 9:50 | vote | accept | Anko | ||
| Dec 27, 2015 at 9:50 | history | bounty ended | Anko | ||
| Dec 24, 2015 at 19:29 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 253 characters in body
|
| Dec 24, 2015 at 11:22 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Indeed. @deerhunter. They messed up big time. | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 11:09 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | To sum it up: SE powers-that-be messed royally with their relicensing proposal. We were (kinda) happy with status quo ante, and now we are restless and want all kinds of fluff for Christmas. | |
| Dec 24, 2015 at 10:35 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Grammar
|
| Dec 23, 2015 at 21:34 | comment | added | user | The issue of multi-licensing is already covered by the OP. And there is nothing preventing you from taking what you've learned by reading the code and applying that knowledge to the problem you're facing. The license only covers the specific implementation, not the ideas expressed. Hence, no need for anyone to ask for an answer to be reposted under a different license; if absolutely necessary, requesting multi-licensing is enough. | |
| Dec 23, 2015 at 21:25 | history | answered | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |