So .. this is too big for a comment. I'd like to put this out as a talking point for everyone that wants to add to this discussion. At this point I'm in no way suggesting anything, I just want to talk about what we hope to get out of a license.
It has to protect our contributors to the point that they feel comfortable contributing. This means protection from people that used code from the site, and experienced what they feel are damages and want someone to sue. Hey — no warranty. Protection of the integrity of their contribution (attribution is needed being a big one) is also very important. The point that you feel comfortable is part of the discussion you're having right now.
It has to protect people that use those contributions. We have to give people clear permission to use the code found on our site, for any purpose, provided that they comply with the terms of the license.
It has to be easy for end users to comply. The easier it is to comply, the more likely folks will be compliant. We're not ruling out changes in the UI that could help this if we can find a scheme that works and people like. Most people just use a link to the post because it does give credit, and it's easy to reference if anything ever does come into question.
It has to be an OSI-approved license that isn't modifiedthat isn't modified. We're in an interesting position, we don't actually distribute software, we distribute blocks of code for educational use that eventually work their way into software. That's why it really has to be a software license. Ideally, we don't create a new one (by writing one, or directly changing the language of one that exists, which essentially creates a new one).
We're also expecting that any scheme is going to require a bit of supporting documentation, examples, FAQs, etc - this can go in the help center.
Also, I'm in no way saying we got all of this right the last two attempts. These were just the goals.
And that's it. I'm butting out. :)
