Timeline for A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2016 at 8:58 | comment | added | user | @DavidFullerton Your comment should definitely be part of the OP. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 12:47 | comment | added | abligh | @AdamDavis if only the code had a 'no attribution' alternate licence (but not the remainder of the question or answer) this would still defeat the scraper sites. Of course this requires defining 'code'. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 12:34 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @abligh This is largely to protect Stack Overflow from copycat sites who repost stack exchange data without attribution. It hurts the business financially. So anything and everything on the SE network needs to be protected with some attribution requirement for them to avoid the worst of the copycat sites. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 12:18 | comment | added | abligh | @AdamDavis I don't quite understand why StackExchange need attribution for a couple of lines of code snippet (the code) as opposed to the rest of answers. I understand why some authors might want it. This is the distinction between helping, and supplying intellectual property. In any case an attribution could be to the author without reference to SE. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 12:03 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @abligh But I've come to the conclusion that this change isn't worse than the previous license. I'm still going to have to do my little clean room reverse engineering thing anyway. I just don't think there's a way to get around that with any license. If this is the path they want to pursue, then while I won't support it, I don't think I'm going to try to convince them to try another path - I don't think it matters at this point. | |
| Jan 15, 2016 at 12:00 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @abligh I agree, but honestly I can't come up with a better licensing solution. I think this solution protects Stack Exchange better, and it appears to align better with what the OSI is trying to accomplish generally - one aspect of which is clearly delineating between code licenses and other copyrights. Because Stack Exchange is a business, they can't just use a fully permissive license, they must demand attribution, which complicates the problem significantly. They tried to resolve it with the previous iteration of this license and got bonked on the head because it won't work. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 21:25 | comment | added | abligh | Even if one accepts the premise that the current situation generates uncertainty, the proposed change does not actually fix it. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 21:01 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @200_success Interesting consideration. Perhaps Stack Overflow has been named in one such lawsuit. Would be interesting to search court cases filed where Stack Overflow is party. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:47 | comment | added | 200_success | @AdamDavis Based on this level of secrecy, I suspect that the parties are unable to speak out because they are involved in an active lawsuit. Stack Overflow staff have been consulted for assistance with the defense. This rushed proposal is an attempt to contain a problem before it spreads. (In my opinion, the proposal — or even the fact that the proposal was raised — would make things worse, by endorsing the trolls' mindset that code is licenseable and thus giving them the home court advantage.) | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 20:24 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @TimPost Would you consider reaching out to those who have been affected and requesting they comment on this proposal, or they give you permission to share some reasonable level of detail about their difficulty? Alternately, consider reducing it to numbers - more than a thousand but less than 100,000, or more than 100k but less than one million, etc people contacted Stack Overflow, Inc about this problem? The highest voted meta question about this issue isn't very highly voted or commented on - meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12527 | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 19:43 | comment | added | miraculixx | @DavidFullerton it might help if you provide the generic concerns (examples) that have been raised, no one expects you to share who has raised them specifically. If there can't be given a sound rationale for this change it is likely to have some goofy background and the community is right to reject it, if for nothing else than 'unclear what you are intending' (to paraphrase a common close reason) | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 17:57 | comment | added | ThisSuitIsBlackNot | @DavidFullerton Just my view from the sidelines, but that lack of transparency is probably responsible for some of the pushback on this proposal. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 17:47 | comment | added | David Fullerton | We are definitely not doing this for philosophical reasons. We're doing this in response to specific concerns about the license not being appropriate for code. I'd love to be able to share more about it but am being told that we can't for some reason I don't fully understand. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 17:34 | comment | added | user50049 | I can't share what people have contacted us privately to discuss, but the ambiguity surrounding how exactly CC-BY-SA applies to code is sufficient for many project managers to say "It's probably not compatible with what we're using" That's not to say it's incompatible, or that CC-BY-SA would bring unknown future complications - that's just it, it's hard to tell. Code trolls are an unfortunate part of life and companies are getting more defensive than ever. It wasn't that big of a problem 6 years ago (and I'm sad that it is now). | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 17:20 | comment | added | falsarella | I couldn't agree more with this. Also, I've found a comment from Tim Post elaborating a bit more on these changes necessity. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:48 | comment | added | Pollyanna | Ambiguity is the path to the dark side. Ambiguity leads to uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to futility. Futility leads to suffering. | |
| Jan 14, 2016 at 16:47 | history | answered | Pollyanna | CC BY-SA 3.0 |