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
367
votes
An Update On Creative Commons Licensing
First, thank you very much for finally giving a comprehensive update on this topic. It has been neglected far too long, from the point of outside observers. Unfortunately ...
Thank you, again, for ...
- 38k
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
164
votes
An Update On Creative Commons Licensing
I've been in lurk-only mode for a number of weeks (okay, fine, I've been sock-puppeteering), but logged back in just to say this:
Thank you.
This is great. It's all we wanted. It's absolutely ...
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 ...
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
100
votes
Accepted
Was the retroactive change to CC BY-SA 4.0 approved by Stack Exchange's lawyers?
Given the complete lack of a response after over three weeks, the answer is clear. It appears as if the answer is no, this change was not run by the legal department. There is no question Stack ...
- 4,588
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
95
votes
An Update On Creative Commons Licensing
Did the change really happen on May 2, 2018 as part of an ToS update?
In A new (2018) update to our Terms of Service is here, a change regarding the license was not announced. Looking at the current ...
- 14.2k
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
90
votes
Creative Commons Licensing UI and Data Updates
Tag only edits trigger a license change.
status-completed
Update: Tag-only edits no longer trigger license changes
Please ignore the rollback.
Is this a bug? Are tags part of the post content?
If ...
- 9,175
82
votes
An Update On Creative Commons Licensing
Thank you for finally acknowledging that there were serious issues with your approach to licensing our content. Explicitly marking the license of each post is messy, but the best approach.
However, ...
- 18.6k
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
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible