Timeline for CC-by-SA vs MIT - The 2016 battle
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 16, 2016 at 21:56 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 219 characters in body; added 49 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2016 at 10:35 | comment | added | Eike Pierstorff | @PatrickHofman, I think this the crux of the matter. What SO has is a general rule (attribution) that covers only exceptions (those rare posts that actually show code worthy of attribution). I don't think this is a good idea, and I know that I am not alone here. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 10:14 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | The license and TOS doesn't make any distinction between them, so the TOS isn't clear on this. As a general rule, if it is just a method call to a framework function, I agree it doesn't fall under the license (you could have copy that from the official documentation). @EikePierstorff | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 10:11 | comment | added | Eike Pierstorff | "All code you have copied from Stack Overflow in the past already required attribution" - repeating this does not make it true. Most code snippets on SO are demonstrations of generic language features, and nowhere on this planet those require attribution (I'm pretty sure that this is what Marco was trying to say). Insisting that hello-word-type programs require licences and attributions is absurd, not to mention un-enforcable. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 22:21 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Indeed. I have seen that too. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 22:06 | comment | added | Ashley Medway | As of today's update attribution is required. | |
| Jan 2, 2016 at 19:27 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 286 characters in body
|
| Jan 2, 2016 at 16:18 | history | answered | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |