I purposely named this question similar to Do I have to worry about copyright issues for code posted on Stack Overflow?. Since Fedora is banning CC-0 licensed source code citing issue of explicitly claiming patents not being touched by the license, I also found out that the current licenses for the post (including source code) is licensed as CC-BY 4.0, which also included a similar clause:

§2.b.2 Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.

I believe that source code copied from Stack Exchange websites are also affected. Is my interpretation correct?

  • 8
    I cannot imagine any amount of code being posted on our network would qualify as an "invention" that could be patented. But past that, the answers in the other question seem equally applicable here.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Aug 1 at 6:18
  • You cannot patent source code.
    – Ramhound
    Aug 1 at 11:07
  • From creativecommons.org/faq/… We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available.
    – PM 2Ring
    Aug 1 at 12:12
  • From wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/… CC0 has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative and does not license or otherwise affect any patent rights you may have. You may want to consider using an approved OSI license that does so instead of CC0
    – PM 2Ring
    Aug 1 at 12:12
  • 4
    The lack of patent licensing would only be relevant if using a post would violate a patent owned by the poster. Most SO users don't own any patents anyways, so the actual effect of not licensing patents is minimal.
    – Smitop
    Aug 1 at 14:25
  • 2
    They tried changing the code license once. It was unpopular
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Aug 1 at 15:34
  • 3
    @JourneymanGeek They did try to change the code license to the MIT license once. There was considerable resistance, but it was actually popular (+695/-158). There were, however, substantial issues. I expect that it would be possible to make such a change to using the MIT license for new contributions only without all that much resistance, as long as many of the issues which were brought up are addressed, which is, mostly, possible and a bit easier now, given they already have a way to indicate different licenses are in use.
    – Makyen
    Aug 1 at 19:20
  • Wierdly, I remember it to have been a raging dumpster fire, but clearly I was mistaken
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Aug 2 at 10:22
  • 1
    this one! - good to see I didn't forget. I wonder if it was more the feelings people had than the content
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Aug 2 at 10:24
  • @JourneymanGeek I'm not enthusiastic about taking the time to go back through to reread the whole thing, so this is just "as I recall". From what I remember, there were some issues, but the main thing was poor execution and explanation on SE's part, along with ... limited ... understand of the various legal requirements. Overall, it seemed do-able, but needed substantially better planing and execution.
    – Makyen
    Aug 8 at 2:48
  • I don't think anyone is - and I also recall this was in a period of fairly bad community/corporate relations. But yeah, that's plausible
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Aug 8 at 2:58


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .