What is "code" for the purposes of the proposed MIT license switchover? [closed]

Question

A follow up from my comment about the new license announcement and samthebrand's response (also from the new license change attempt):

The proposed new licensing terms differentiate between code and non-code. There are obvious examples of code.

int i = 42;

but there are also less obvious example of code in the following section:

---

int i = 42; //not in a code block

i = 42 //pseudocode

//i = 42 is a comment

i am a noob and I dont know how to use markdown. gimmie teh codez

int i = 42;//quotes not code blocks

---

So which one of these count as code and not? I think the most complicated case is the code in non-code blocks and the pseudocode.

@Doorknob and @Mad Scientist also brought up a good point in comments: what about trivial code that is inlined? i.e. int i=42;

@Anko brought up another good edge casepoint, what about picture-based programming languages like Piet?

Answer 1

The answer is: it depends, and it will probably have to be up to a judge to decide it each time. Neither SO/SE nor the poster nor an editor nor the person taking the code can decide it for all situations fully.

And, as we know, once lawyers are involved, things get messy.

IMHO there should be no distinction between code and non-code contributions, and we should have harmonic licence terms (i.e. the same) for them, to avoid this particular headache.

Update: another problem of not using the same licence for the entire post is that people would copy the code part without the explanations (to avoid having to add two distinct licences), which will end badly; if the entire post is covered by only one licence, much of the explanation could be merged into a code comment, for example.

Answer 2

There is no reasonable distinction.

Due to all the problems mentioned in the comments, while some things may be clearly code and others may be clearly prose, it is impossible to draw a line anywhere. The transition from describing a process using English vs describing it using a programming language is very subtle; consider the following:

return image if alive

Is that English or ruby? Impossible to tell: it is valid as both. If we are to determine purely based on formatting, then we run into the problem of being unable to edit improperly formatted answers because that is effectively relicensing content without the author’s consent.

Answer 3

After thinking about it for a little bit I think the answer is self-evident.

When the content of a post is implemented in your code then it becomes code.

It is really that simple. It doesn't really matter if return image if alive is valid Ruby and English in your post. It only matters if it is valid in the program that I write with the help of your post.

This feels like a straight forward interpretation that doesn't rely on the formatting or other annotations in the post. It also makes the most sense IMO because where the MIT license is meant to be used is when XYZ leaves the post and enters code.

Answer 4

Obviously it is up to a judge to decide, but the judge will decide based on some criteria.

I'd say in this context code is any text obviously intended to be processable by a specific parser for effect (not no-ops). When reasonable doubt can exist about that intention of the author, a text should not be code in the legal sense, even if it happens to be valid for any given parser in the world.

In that sense, a person provides code on a webpage as a substitute for providing the effect that running the code would have.

So markdown is not automatically code unless provided in such a way to be fed to a parser. Pseudo-code is not code. Mere comments are not code, because they do not have any effect when processed.

Answer 5

I've commented this elsewhere:

Basically, if the answer teaches basic elements of the language / framework API (i.e. from the docs, or other undocumented parts of the language / framework) - then it's just another way of writing the public-domain docs. In this case, it's not "code" for the purposes of attribution.

IMO. How could it be? All the Answerer has managed to do is write better than the docs writers.

In a strange world with singularities, all of these answers would eventually become the public docs for a language, since they've been more-heavily vetted as beneficial.

Answer 6

The "reasonable" way would be to add checkbox to a answer called "I want attribution", disabled by default, and then visualise it when viewing the post. That way if someone want to have their ego stroked by attribution they have that option but for (I assume, based on feedback) vast majority it would just work as before