Timeline for A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2020 at 10:00 | comment | added | Prof. Falken | opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/9276/… | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 26, 2017 at 16:01 | comment | added | That Realtor Programmer Guy | @otus CodeReview just requires a pastebin really | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 22:37 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 31, 2016 at 13:53 | comment | added | Jorge Leitao | @ghosts_in_the_code I believe that my reputation in MSO does not reflect my contribution to it. This answer happens to summarise what lots of folks fell about the proposal. There are more constructive answers out there, and you should check them instead. | |
| May 31, 2016 at 12:25 | comment | added | ghosts_in_the_code | Someone had made a fortune on one answer :P | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 15:58 | comment | added | Hacktivista | @J.C.Leitão So you stand by an answer that does not provide any solution at all. All right, it explains problems pretty well, but there's a lot of people interested in how things should be done. | |
| Jan 23, 2016 at 18:20 | comment | added | user159773 | The sneaky greedy business goal is to increase traffic, increase page view, increase revenue. People won't just be coming here to learn, now we'll get page views from people who want to a repository of code snippets they can freely copy and paste. | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 18:26 | comment | added | Alex A. | @TylerH More often than not, the real challenging aspect behind the problems posted on Code Golf isn't the minification, it's the problems themselves. We've had problems ranging group theory to image processing, music to statistics. Though finding clever tricks to shorten your solution is also a big part of the challenge. But you're right, Code Golf isn't really a Q&A site in the same way Stack Overflow is; our questions are challenges and our answers are solutions, much like Puzzling.SE. I'd say we're more "nonstandard" than "non-serious." ;) | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 16:27 | comment | added | Jorge Leitao | @samthebrand I disagree that you are proposing a change that is not consensual and expect people to accept it. This is a kind of change that, for me, requires that the different options are put on the table (e.g. 1) don't change anything, 2) make code MIT; 3) make code MIT attributable; 4) ...), let people add, modify, and delete the options and its argumentation, and then let people vote on what they believe to be the best path (even if this vote is non-binding to the decision). IMO this is more informative to all of us than the method "lets do A?" -> No; "what about B?" -> No... | |
| Jan 16, 2016 at 6:28 | comment | added | TylerH | @AlexA. I meant more of a non-serious site as in, not solving real-world, vocational problems; asking questions for asking's sake. Not to say that there aren't any serious, real-world questions for minification, just that I never saw any the dozen or so times I scrolled through CodeGolf. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 20:56 | comment | added | Alex A. | @TylerH As a moderator on Code Golf, I can tell you that while we like to have fun, we are most certainly not a "joke site." We have some incredible solutions to intellectually stimulating problems. I invite you to join the community and see what we're all about. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 20:03 | comment | added | Jim Balter | "do you expect people who post code on GitHub (a free, public and largely anonymous site) to feel the same as you expect people who post on Code Review? And if not, why? " -- Anyone who posts code on GitHub without an explicit copyright notice should expect it to be treated as Public Domain. The same is true of SE or anywhere else. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 20:01 | comment | added | Jim Balter | "I doubt many people are posting questions on Code Review in the expectation other people will be able to use it freely." -- Your doubts are not facts. Anyone not expecting that is foolish. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 6:25 | comment | added | ertert3terte | For all those complaining about code being given away, it is given away now too. You put proprietary code on Code Review, and I'll take it and implement it in my open source project under the CC-BY-SA. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 21:40 | comment | added | dominic | This is insane. It is utterly baffling how any intelligent person could think this is workable, or indeed even sensible. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:16 | comment | added | otus | @TylerH, I agree that substantive code probably does not belong on Stack Overflow, but Code Review requires complete, working code and Code Golf is arguably substantive code as well. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | TylerH | @otus No, I expect them to feel only slightly different, because whole repositories and complete code bases go on Github. Github also has private gists for that, too, so that comparison isn't the best. Stack Exchange sites are for snippets with isolated problems. Like someone has suggested already on this page, do you expect a two-line snippet of code to instantiate a new class to be protectable by licensure? Or appropriate for licensure in the first place? Code that is substantive enough to require a license is probably code that doesn't belong on Stack Exchange sites. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:08 | comment | added | thegrinner | @TylerH Re Code Golf: Sure, but according to the comments below this answer it's GPL'd, and it wasn't posted with the intention of changing that. For the rest, I think otus's comment is a good way of looking at it. Just because something is made publicly visible doesn't mean it's meant to be used without restriction. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:06 | comment | added | otus | @TylerH, do you expect people who post code on GitHub (a free, public and largely anonymous site) to feel the same as you expect people who post on Code Review? And if not, why? | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:03 | comment | added | TylerH | @thegrinner As for Code Golf, that's just a joke site, right? | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:02 | comment | added | TylerH | @thegrinner I doubt any people are posting in Code Review with the expectation that other people won't use that code freely. If any do, they need to manage their expectations. If you post code on a free, public (and largely anonymous) code help site, there's no license that can protect it. If you need a code review of code that needs to be restricted/private (and for some reason your workplace doesn't offer that), use one of the many private 1-on-1 code review services out there where there's accountability built-in. Any anonymous passerby can copy your Code Review snippet and use it. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 19:54 | comment | added | thegrinner | @TylerH I doubt many people are posting questions on Code Review in the expectation other people will be able to use it freely. Similarly for Code Golf, I doubt every solution/entry is intended to be freely available for anyone who wants. They aren't question-answer in the same way Stack Overflow is, and they don't have the same licensing needs. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 19:43 | comment | added | TylerH | What about them? | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 19:33 | comment | added | thegrinner | @TylerH What about Code Review? That's a code site on the Stack Exchange network. Or Code Golf? | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 19:24 | comment | added | TylerH | I have to disagree with you on the highest-voted answer from the last thread. It simply gets the "internet" flat-out wrong. I have trouble taking seriously anyone who comes to Stack Overflow with the intention of sharing code with restrictions on who can use that code and where. If you don't want people using your code, don't share it on a public (and largely anonymous) site. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 19:10 | comment | added | samthebrand StaffMod | I probably mischaracterized the community's response to the initial proposal - it was positive, with a few "buts". I've modified this follow-up so it's less of a black-and-white interpretation of the way the community feels. But can you tell me exactly what it is you disagree with in the current proposal (as opposed to the way that we proposed it)? | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:57 | comment | added | undo | Now, I will just use the button I made here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272546 | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:24 | comment | added | enderland | @Jaydles that's entirely fair. But what's not fair is taking a very clearly divisive post and then broadly generalizing by ignoring the significant negative feedback from other answers on the post -- that's... disingenuous at best. So don't wrap that attitude in a "the community response was positive!" wrapper... | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:08 | comment | added | Jaydles Staff | @joojaa, to be clear, we got lots of feedback. A lot of it was positive, and a lot of it wasn't. And no solution will make everyone happy, but we've worked hard to try to find the best possible balance. And if I'm honest, the assumption that it's for some secret business reason felt unfair, mostly because it genuinely isn't - a change like this is mostly hassle for us, but we've come to recognize that NOT giving users a clear license isn't fair to contributors or those who want to comply with the rules. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:07 | history | edited | Shadow Wizard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:05 | comment | added | Vlad274 | @Jaydles I think most people agree with that idea, the biggest issue is that "code" hasn't been defined | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:04 | comment | added | joojaa | @Jaydles I dont really care about the lisense per se. This does not touch me in the slightest as the license claim you make does not change anything as far as I'm concerned short code snippets do not get copyright in my locale anyway. Im more concerned of the fact that the train went and despite some negative feedback you think your getting positive feedback. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:01 | comment | added | Jaydles Staff | @joojaa, what's the implied sneaky greedy business goal you think might be behind this? (I genuinely don't know what one would be. This is simply about shifting to a license that's less ambiguous as it relates to code.) | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 15:59 | comment | added | Jaydles Staff | Yeah, I didn't want to edit your answer lest I get your take wrong, but I tried to fix the info to more clearly reflect, "positive voting, but with valid critical feedback that we've tried to incorporate." | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 15:58 | comment | added | joojaa | @Raystafarian Actually that 85% removed is just a weaseling out of the real issue. They are doing this for the wrong reasons and see the thing in rose tinted eyes because its a "business" decision. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 15:58 | comment | added | nicael | The wording has changed a bit, but the answer's still fair. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 15:55 | history | answered | Jorge Leitao | CC BY-SA 3.0 |