Return to Answer

The proposed terms are reducible to any license, including CC0 or WTFPL.

For 'code' (which you can't even be bothered to define), the terms you are proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to CC0 or any other desired license. I'll explain how.

The post above proposes the following new licensing terms.

Starting March 1, 2016, new contributions across the network will be licensed to the public under the following terms:

• Non-code contributions will continue to be available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA
• Code contributions will be available for use under the terms of the MIT License
• You don’t have to include the full MIT License in your code base. Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

That "MIT License" (which is really the OSI MIT License or the Expat License) states:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.

The only restriction the OSI MIT License imposes is the requirement to include a copy of the copyright notice and the permission notice. However, Stack Exchange's proposed terms waive that requirement (see above: "Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement").

This means that:

1. A first generation derivative work would have to include attribution, but would be able to be distributed under a license not requiring attribution or sharing alike, e.g. CC0 or WTFPL.

2. Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike (e.g. in any second derivative works).

3. Anyone will be able to re-license, in this way, any 'code' posted to Stack Exchange sites.

4. 'Code' posted to Stack Exchange sites can therefore ultimately be used in any way a plagiarist derivative author wishes. As such, it is effectively CC0 (or WTFPL, etc) licensed.

This loophole means that your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms ultimately undermines any desire you (or we!) may have that Stack Exchange contributors should be required to be treated with respect and acknowledgement by users of their contributions.

Please don't go ahead with your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms.

The proposed terms are reducible to any license, including CC0 or WTFPL.

For 'code' (which you can't even be bothered to define), the terms you are proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to CC0 or any other desired license. I'll explain how.

The post above proposes the following new licensing terms.

Starting March 1, 2016, new contributions across the network will be licensed to the public under the following terms:

• Non-code contributions will continue to be available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA
• Code contributions will be available for use under the terms of the MIT License
• You don’t have to include the full MIT License in your code base. Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

That "MIT License" (which is really the OSI MIT License or the Expat License) states:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.

The only restriction the OSI MIT License imposes is the requirement to include a copy of the copyright notice and the permission notice. However, Stack Exchange's proposed terms waive that requirement (see above: "Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement").

This means that:

1. A first generation derivative work would have to include attribution, but would be able to be distributed under a license not requiring attribution or sharing alike, e.g. CC0 or WTFPL.

2. Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike (e.g. in any second derivative works).

3. Anyone will be able to re-license, in this way, any 'code' posted to Stack Exchange sites.

4. 'Code' posted to Stack Exchange sites can therefore ultimately be used in any way a plagiarist derivative author wishes. As such, it is effectively CC0 (or WTFPL, etc) licensed.

This loophole means that your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms ultimately undermines any desire you (or we!) may have that Stack Exchange contributors should be required to be treated with respect and acknowledgement by users of their contributions.

Please don't go ahead with your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms.

The proposed terms are reducible to any license, including CC0 or WTFPL.

For 'code' (which you can't even be bothered to define), the terms you are proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to CC0 or any other desired license. I'll explain how.

The post above proposes the following new licensing terms.

Starting March 1, 2016, new contributions across the network will be licensed to the public under the following terms:

• Non-code contributions will continue to be available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA
• Code contributions will be available for use under the terms of the MIT License
• You don’t have to include the full MIT License in your code base. Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

That "MIT License" (which is really the OSI MIT License or the Expat License) states:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.

The only restriction the OSI MIT License imposes is the requirement to include a copy of the copyright notice and the permission notice. However, Stack Exchange's proposed terms waive that requirement (see above: "Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement").

This means that:

1. A first generation derivative work would have to include attribution, but would be able to be distributed under a license not requiring attribution or sharing alike, e.g. CC0 or WTFPL.

2. Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike (e.g. in any second derivative works).

3. Anyone will be able to re-license code posted to Stack Exchange sites in this way.

4. Code posted to Stack Exchange site and re-licensed in this way can therefore be used in any way the plagiarist derivative author wishes. It is therefore effectively CC0 (or WTFPL, etc) licensed.

As a result, your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms ultimately undermines any intention that contributors and their contributions should be required to be treated with any respect or acknowledgement by users of their contributions.

Please don't go ahead with your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms.

The proposed terms are reducible to any license, including CC0 or WTFPL.

For 'code' (which you can't even be bothered to define), the terms you are proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to CC0 or any other desired license. I'll explain how.

The post above proposes the following new licensing terms.

Starting March 1, 2016, new contributions across the network will be licensed to the public under the following terms:

• Non-code contributions will continue to be available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA
• Code contributions will be available for use under the terms of the MIT License
• You don’t have to include the full MIT License in your code base. Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

That "MIT License" (which is really the OSI MIT License or the Expat License) states:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.

The only restriction the OSI MIT License imposes is the requirement to include a copy of the copyright notice and the permission notice. However, Stack Exchange's proposed terms waive that requirement (see above: "Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement").

This means that:

1. A first generation derivative work would have to include attribution, but would be able to be distributed under a license not requiring attribution or sharing alike, e.g. CC0 or WTFPL.

2. Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike (e.g. in any second derivative works).

3. Anyone will be able to re-license, in this way, any 'code' posted to Stack Exchange sites.

4. 'Code' posted to Stack Exchange sites can therefore ultimately be used in any way a plagiarist derivative author wishes. As such, it is effectively CC0 (or WTFPL, etc) licensed.

This loophole means that your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms ultimately undermines any desire you (or we!) may have that Stack Exchange contributors should be required to be treated with respect and acknowledgement by users of their contributions.

Please don't go ahead with your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms.

The proposed terms are reducible to any license, including CC0 or WTFPL.

My understanding is that for 'code' (whatever that is), the terms you are proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to CC0 or any other desired license. Here is my reasoning:

The post above proposes the following new licensing terms.

Starting March 1, 2016, new contributions across the network will be licensed to the public under the following terms:

• Non-code contributions will continue to be available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA
• Code contributions will be available for use under the terms of the MIT License
• You don’t have to include the full MIT License in your code base. Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

That "MIT License" (which is really the OSI MIT License or the Expat License) states:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.

The only restriction the OSI MIT License imposes is the requirement to include a copy of the copyright notice and the permission notice. However, Stack Exchange's proposed terms waive that requirement (see above: "Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement").

This means that:

1. A first generation derivative work would have to include attribution, but would be able to be distributed under a license not requiring attribution or sharing alike, e.g. CC0 or WTFPL.

2. Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike (e.g. in any second derivative works).

3. Anyone will be able to re-license code posted to Stack Exchange sites in this way.

4. Code posted to Stack Exchange site and re-licensed in this way can therefore be used in any way the plagiarist derivative author wishes. It is therefore effectively CC0 (or WTFPL, etc) licensed.

Please don't go ahead with your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms.

The proposed terms are reducible to any license, including CC0 or WTFPL.

For 'code' (which you can't even be bothered to define), the terms you are proposing possess a gaping license-laundering loophole and are legally reducible to CC0 or any other desired license. I'll explain how.

The post above proposes the following new licensing terms.

Starting March 1, 2016, new contributions across the network will be licensed to the public under the following terms:

• Non-code contributions will continue to be available for use under the terms of CC-BY-SA
• Code contributions will be available for use under the terms of the MIT License
• You don’t have to include the full MIT License in your code base. Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

That "MIT License" (which is really the OSI MIT License or the Expat License) states:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.

The only restriction the OSI MIT License imposes is the requirement to include a copy of the copyright notice and the permission notice. However, Stack Exchange's proposed terms waive that requirement (see above: "Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement").

This means that:

1. A first generation derivative work would have to include attribution, but would be able to be distributed under a license not requiring attribution or sharing alike, e.g. CC0 or WTFPL.

2. Anyone receiving such a first derivative work is therefore not required to attribute or to share alike (e.g. in any second derivative works).

3. Anyone will be able to re-license code posted to Stack Exchange sites in this way.

4. Code posted to Stack Exchange site and re-licensed in this way can therefore be used in any way the plagiarist derivative author wishes. It is therefore effectively CC0 (or WTFPL, etc) licensed.

As a result, your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms ultimately undermines any intention that contributors and their contributions should be required to be treated with any respect or acknowledgement by users of their contributions.

Please don't go ahead with your proposed change to Stack Exchange's licensing terms.