945
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
I like CC BY-SA 4.0. IMO, it's better than 3.0. I'd prefer to use it. I've chosen to use 4.0, instead of 3.0, on projects of my own. However, my preference doesn't affect the current situation with ...
- 23.2k
772
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
In essence, this proposal is to move from a copyleft license (CC-BY-SA 3.0) to a permissive license for code. (By default, it's basically the most permissive license possible, nearly equivalent to ...
- 12.4k
740
votes
A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
85% of votes on the proposal were upvotes.
I upvoted the initial proposal because I believe it is important, but I strongly disagree with it. I suspect a lot of other folks did the same...
Your ...
- 1,954
581
votes
A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
85% of votes on the proposal were upvotes.
Not everyone active on Stack Overflow is active at SE.Meta. For those users, they can upvote (thanks to cross-network bonus) but not downvote (that requires ...
- 2,239
521
votes
A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
The year is 2018…
… and the economy is in a slump. Pundits on CNN are attributing the decline to a lack of growth in the computing sector. According to Alyssa P. Bitdiddle, senior analyst with the ...
- 12.4k
376
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
I have some serious concerns with this, especially after the last round of licensing fiascos around the MIT license.
I want to be clear: I like the Creative Commons licenses for text. I think that CC-...
- 43.9k
281
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
Please don't add a blanket exception to the attribution requirements.
I live on the Open Source site. Now, if someone came along and asked a question along the lines of "is it ever a good idea to add ...
- 36.3k
230
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
What?!
Am I the only person that doesn't understand what this all means? This really needs a TL;DR.
I was under the impression that any answers I provided on Stack Overflow that contained code are to ...
- 2,938
204
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
As animuson wanted this phrased as a question:
Are you sure you're legally allowed to relicense all content without asking the copyright holders (i.e. all contributors) individually for permission? ...
- 4,376
157
votes
A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
This is a greatly improved step in the right direction. But I still have problems.
BEGIN TL;DR
First, I want a complete proposal. I don't want things that aren't provided. I want to see everything ...
- 43.9k
149
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
A few thoughts:
1. Don't pretend this is the MIT license
Don't pretend you're using the MIT license when you're not. If you need a unique license for a unique situation then just use a unique ...
- 18.6k
147
votes
Accepted
Will concerns regarding the move to CC BY-SA 4.0 elicit any further dialogue from Stack Exchange, Inc.?
One week later...
Okay, well, I guess we have our answer.
To say that I am disappointed in this company's behaviour would be a gross understatement.
I tried to politely offer the option of direct ...
- 34.9k
145
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
Another subtle way in which the move to 4.0 is problematic is the following: CC-BY-SA 4.0 requires that any change made to the source material must be explicitly marked. And two changes that SE makes ...
- 3,942
141
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
Right after this announcement here from Tim Post made on Sep 5th, I wrote to the legal department of the Network (legal at stackoverflow dot com) on Sep 7th in the hope of getting a clarification. I ...
- 14.2k
136
votes
A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
We want to hear what you think. Barring any showstopper, these terms and a detailed FAQ will be rolled out March 1, 2016.
Please do not do this. The FAQ should be out and we should have some time to ...
- 2,215
132
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
I have two thoughts about this. The first is that the line between code and non-code is sometimes blurry. This means that depending on how we write answers, different things are protected ...
- 2,833
107
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
Sorry but I think this is a pretty terrible idea.
Code on Stack Overflow, Server Fault, etc. isn't "code" in the typical sense of licensing where you're concerned about distributing it for use by ...
- 10.1k
103
votes
Accepted
Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?
As @VLAZ said, the primary concern was (and remains) the apparent illegality of the relicensing process. The license itself wasn't the problem.
This was then exacerbated by SE's lack of response to ...
- 1,081
97
votes
A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
Meta meta-Meta
For a post that was intended primarily to address one of the concerns raised (repeatedly) in the previous discussion, this sure has kicked up a lot of dust. I got to talking with a few ...
- 447k
97
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that Stack Exchange is running a serious risk of losing their rights to ALL content because of their failure to address this issue.
As is clearly stated in the ...
- 2,847
92
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
Contributors agree to give code users permission to ignore the MIT License’s notice preservation requirement, as long as users give reasonable attribution upon request of the copyright holder
Sounds ...
- 24.7k
92
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
I'm not sure that this would be a good move for Code Review, as questions and answers there often involve substantial amounts of code that are intended to be public knowledge, but not necessarily ...
- 12.4k
91
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
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 ...
- 20.3k
73
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
I have sent an inquiry directly to the OSI for a comment on this situation. Frankly, I am surprised that they would be recommending the changes that are proposed here. I hope to hear back from them ...
- 9,416
69
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
While we are here ....
This is related enough to be mentioned here.
When images are copied to Imgur they are not only notionally assigned CC-by-whatever-the-current-flavour-is rights BUT also are ...
- 2,109
66
votes
Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow have moved to CC BY-SA 4.0
I think it would be better to provide a choice (like YouTube, DeviantArt and some other websites do): CC BY-SA 4.0 as default value for new content, and 3.0 for old content. And of course MIT :)
- 1,358
65
votes
Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?
For me, when SE said they were changing the license on content I'd already provided, they showed me they weren't going to do what they promised. Put simply, the license change on my content shows me I ...
- 5,333
65
votes
Why do people object to the license change so strongly despite having preference towards the proposed new license (CC 4)?
As others have said, the problem isn't the new license by itself.
These are the reasons we are complaining:
Abrupt decision: in the past, changes were announced before their release, so that it was ...
63
votes
A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required
Thanks for listening to the community. I felt there was a huge resistance and that was primarily caused by not listening. So thanks for taking our opinion in consideration now. (I still don't agree, ...
- 91.6k
61
votes
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange
Please make it clear that code will be dual-licensed, not just pure MIT.
At least, that's what I hope you're trying to do, but the way you've phrased it, it could be interpreted to mean that new code ...
- 31.6k
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible