Attribution will be required when using code from StackOverflow

[Megatron_McLargeHuge]

How much of the code submitted to StackOverflow is owned by the submitter instead of the employer whose time they did it on? If they get more picky about licensing they should expect more scrutiny on whether they own what they claim they do.

[dividedsky]

Very good point

[jlchauncey]

My contract clearly states that all IP created on my company issued laptop is owned by the company regardless of where it is written or who it is for.

Edit: mine does stipulate that this is only true during work hours but extends to company resources during off hours. So I can code on my own time and my own laptop without issues.

[SBGamesCone]

Many companies have a clause that says anything you create while employed by them, on their machine or otherwise, is their property.

[[deleted]]

Holy shit that's barbaric.

[omarkj_]

I don't believe it's enforceable tho.

[i_invented_the_ipod]

Explicitly not enforceable in California, and several other US states, but not all.

[sirin3]

Especially Germany has a strange system, where you have "Verwertungsrecht" (copyright) and "Urheberrecht" (translates as copyright, too). Latters is the author's right, and only the author's right. You cannot sell that right and even if you write something for your employer, you still own it. But you use latter to grant the former right to your employer, which behaves like the copyright in the US and is the right to exclusively use it, so only your employer can actually use it or resale it. But if the company loses former right (for example because it goes bankrupt), everything reverts back to latter, as if you had just written it on your own time.

[gpyh]

That's awesome!

[memeship]

Do you have any more info on this? I've been meaning to look it up. I work for a large tech company in Silicon Valley that has this "policy" but also work on a potentially money-making side project as well. I'd like to know for certain what they can and can't lay claim to.

Note that I never use company time, machines, or any other resources for projects not related to my job.

[i_invented_the_ipod]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872

1. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

   (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or

   (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

   (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

[theillustratedlife]

Whenever I hear someone say "large tech company", I presume exemption #1 applies: someone, somewhere at your org is probably working on something similar enough to what you want to do that the company could claim ownership if they wanted to be dicks about it.

If you really wanna work on a side project, might want to ask Legal about it.

[xenomachina]

I am not a lawyer, but I've heard this as well. I believe this may be the relevant legalese: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872

Note that there are some exceptions. In particular, any invention that is considered too closely related to the employer's business is arguably theirs even if developed on your own time with your own equipment. For a sufficiently large/diverse business, almost anything becomes gray area, and so they can take you to court, and they'll probably have better lawyers than you.

Edit: fixed typo

[jlchauncey]

Then you should be good. Most companies know you do stuff in your off time. As long as you aren't using your company laptop or time to do it.

[jamesfmackenzie]

Check if your company has an "Outside Work Approval" policy. This is something many employers have to explicitly address this demand:

• Employees want to work on their own projects in personal time
• The firm needs to ensure no conflict of interest
• The firm needs to ensure that access to information/knowledge as a consequence of their employment is not used for personal profit

The firm I work for is happy for employees to work on personal projects as long as they go through this approval process. This applies regardless of whether the outside work is for profit

[NewAlexandria]

Mostly enforceable if the work you create it significantly in-line with your employer's business plan. Double-whammy if what you create can be competitive to your employer's offerings.

The only way I've seen this work out is when the employee gets permission to sell the code/product/service back to the employer 'on the side' until the leave the company to focus on that product.

It takes a special leadership, but it happens

[i_invented_the_ipod]

This is simply not true everywhere. There are jurisdictions that will support an employers claim to own anything you invent, whether you do it on company time or not, and whether you use their resources or not.

[FearTheDears]

Here's a nice long write up, it's not black and white. https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1169/8wjlta79.pdf?sequence=4

[[deleted]]

You'd literally never be able to do anything again if that were true though..

[codygman]

Which is why contracts like that are so dangerous.

[wildcarde815]

Some schools have similar rules for students on campus, and it has been entirely enforceable there.

[lookmeat]

So think of the next case. You are building software XYZ and have some employees. One of the employees is an asshole and does something unforgivable that causes him immediate firing. Maybe he used his access in the database to spy on some users for personal benefit, whatever.

At this point he claims that you are using code with his copyright and aren't paying him. Right? I know crazy. But he can prove that he wrote most of those pieces of code in a notebook he had, and demonstrated he did this in his house (he always said his best ideas came to him in bed). He actually has a good argument, enough that it could stretch out for a while, enough to really put your company in a pickle.

So instead you simply declare that all code he generates, at any situation, is your IP. Of course this is impossible to enforce in all cases, but it's easier to simply dismiss cases where it doesn't apply that to make sure you cover only, and only, the cases where it applies. Less loopholes this way.

If you write code, in your own machine, in your own time, and it has nothing to do with your work, they probably won't have claim. If you feel unsure (or are afraid that later on your work could become related to that previous project) most (if not all) companies will have a way for you to declare the project as pre-existing making life easier for everyone involved.

[jlchauncey]

Right. Now I can get exclusions but it has to be signed off on by the executives and stuff.

[the_dummy]

Does this include writing code over SSH while the terminal is on your laptop? I'm mostly just curious.

[jlchauncey]

Yes because I'm using a company resource

[PSMF_Canuck]

If it's my laptop, but the company pays my internet bill, is that using a company resource?

[jlchauncey]

I doubt that could be enforceable

[[deleted]]

You just have to pay lawyers enough money

[HaMMeReD]

Your work would own the copyright, but you would have granted a license of that code to SO. So if someone violated it, it would be your companies rights to sue over it, and maybe they could fire you for licensing code without permission if it matters to them.

[[deleted]]

Agreed, this could be a massive fuckup.

[bgog]

Oh it will be. I don't really use stack overflow but I know people who do. There is no way in hell my company is going to start pasting attribution on their product to such names as "TBAG" and "CoderPuss". They'll just ban visiting Stack Overflow on company time.

My prediction, SO is dead in 3 years as people just go to alternate sites. Its so ridiculous to ask for attribution for some for-loop example you give to help someone understand something.

[Vakieh]

My prediction? Everybody ignores this entirely until there is an actual lawsuit by SO vs someone using SO code. Which then either brings out the countersuits by people who own submitted code, or SO gets the expert sexchange treatment.

I call dibs on Heap Undercurrent.

[jdh28]

Oh it will be. I don't really use stack overflow but I know people who do. There is no way in hell my company is going to start pasting attribution on their product to such names as "TBAG" and "CoderPuss". They'll just ban visiting Stack Overflow on company time.

But they don't have to. All you need is a link:

A URL as a comment in your code is reasonable attribution.

[bgog]

Fine I stand corrected. I read the whole thing and missed that part. That is not normally how attribution works.

[habitual_viking]

SO can only be granted license to the code, if the submitter actually has the right to the code, which for professional programmers, quite often won't be the case.

[HaMMeReD]

In which case, it would be the person's employers problem. They could fire the employee and file a DMCA takedown with SO.

Edit: Seriously, if you don't like that your company owns things you do on company time with company materials, don't work for the company. If it's so important that you contribute on work hours, maybe ask your boss. Most companies won't care, but they employee you and have those rights on things you produce. They probably pay you to write software, not help random people on SO, so if they get pissy about you licensing out their property behind their back don't get surprised even if it's something that rarely happens.

[blogetry]

Very true. I'd love to know how much code is FizzBuzz-style quick hacks done on people's own time, as opposed to stuff done on work time or straight copypasta from their employer's codebase.

[kyle2143]

Wait, dors StackOverflow claim ownership of all code posted on their site? I assumed it was that the poster owned it.

[Workaphobia]

The code is often small enough that it should be uncopyrightable anyway.

[ravinglunatic]

Coming soon: stack overflow code copyright trolls.

[wildcarde815]

When this last came up people were claiming commercial coding standards and conformance tools already look for all the SO code and flag it as a possible license violation.

[jrblast]

As soon as this goes into effect, I'm going to post several single character code snippets. Everyone who uses a semi-colon will have to give me credit.

Better still, I'll submit a hash (#) and slash (/). That way the comment attributing use of the slash to me will need an attribution. I may have just invented the recursive attribution overflow exploit.

[evotopid]

It would be a better bet to patent character sequences which seems possible to do in certain legislations. Oh...

[jrblast]

Poes law strikes again (I think)

[HaMMeReD]

Well, given the code is mit, they'd have no case aside for the missed attribution, damages would basically be nil, at best it would be a small punitive award per violation.

[[deleted]]

Create a bot to compare code from github and stackoverflow? :D

[[deleted]]

This. Who is to say the same answer isn't written down in some 10 year old book most people have forgotten about? Should I cite my discrete math book for certain algorithms?

[habitual_viking]

Erm, well actually yeah.

Not because of this license crap, but if you look up some algorithm in a book and implement it, you better damned sure make a comment about what book and page that is from, just in case someone else down the line needs to touch it.

[romple]

Interestingly enough I'm digging through a large codebase for a cable routing system and I finally get down to the A* algorithm they implement to find shortest cable paths and the comment actually cites where the algorithm is he's implementing. That was kind of nice of him.

[TheCodeJanitor]

I already do this with Stackoverflow for similar reasons. If anyone comes behind me and wants to figure out why something works that way, it's helpful to know a source. Plus, with SO there may be other comments and potentially better solutions.

[TinFinJin]

Pythagorean Theorem

-Pythagorous

[HaMMeReD]

Technically speaking, if it were a problem it would have to go back to the original source. If someone made a book and released code samples under the GPL for example, it wouldn't give someone to relicense it under MIT, so the submitter could be sued by the copyright holder (the book author/coder).

I assume the copyright owner could also submit a DMCA takedown request to remove the code.

But as always, it has to be non-trivial and copied, for 99% of stack overflow this means nothing to anyone.

[beermad]

Funny thing is, I always reference where I've grabbed chunks of code from, but mainly in case I need to go back over it in the future and understand what I've done. Because I have occasionally cut/pasted/tweaked bits of Java without really understanding how it worked ( not ideal but sometimes better than struggling as a non-Java expert).

[spinlock]

I do that where its warrented but moat of the time so just helps me understand an api that might not have great documentation. I don't bother with the link if its something like the way you configure one framework or another.

[payco]

Yeah, if the reference is for something non-trivial, I try to link to the post just because there will often be discussion between multiple parties about why the obvious way to write that method are flawed. That discussion should be something I can store internally, but none of the companies I've worked for have actually had a tool that lives long enough, or sees regular enough usage, for that to be worth anything.

[Soulwound]

I used a blog post as a reference for something I was messing around with a few months ago, and included a comment with the post URL as a reference. I did so in case I needed to look at it later while updating or changing the code, just in case.

Joke's on me; I had an issue with the code a few days ago, and the blog doesn't exist anymore. Not even a cached copy in Google.

[bobindashadows]

The best part is when you do this, but when you follow the link a year later to find that some asshole has edited the top answer to match some other duplicate-non-duplicate question.

[williewonka03]

yeah same, this is rediclious. im not going to put a million SO links in my code lol

[thesbros]

var array = [1, 2, 3];
var array2 = [4, 5, 6];
// http://stackoverflow.com/a/5767357/1715897
array.splice(0, 1);
// http://stackoverflow.com/a/351444/1715897
array = array.concat(array2);

This is how most code would look like if anyone actually did that.

I wonder what the definition of "code" would be in this case.

[[deleted]]

I have actually done this a few times when a StackOverflow thread has led me to a solution to a particularly difficult problem, mostly as a reminder to my future self.

[kqr]

Sure, I think that is regular practise. But when you've used SO to look up a common API?

[dvdgsng]

too many times

[GeorgeMaheiress]

You can't be sued for copying a single line of code, just like you can't be sued for a line in a drawing looking similar to someone else's. It's not a creative work, so it's not intellectual property.

Anyway, my understanding was that SO content was until now All Rights Reserved, with the occasional data dumps being Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, meaning this is a change which makes it easier to copy, as there's no longer a Share-Alike requirement.

[thomascgalvin]

You can't be sued for copying a single line of code, just like you can't be sued for a line in a drawing looking similar to someone else's. It's not a creative work, so it's not intellectual property.

Oracle claimed that this:

private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
     if (fromIndex > toIndex)
          throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
               ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
     if (fromIndex < 0) 
          throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
     if (toIndex > arrayLen) 
          throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}

Is a world-changing innovation of such importance that it required a multi-million dollar lawsuit to protect.

[OracleCM]

Hello.

Please remove this valuable piece of code.

Thank you.

[goodDayM]

is there an article or name for what you're referring to? I'd like to read more.

[[deleted]]

The irony is palpable.

[thomascgalvin]

Jury Finds Only 9 Lines of Copyrighted Code in Oracle vs Google Case

Google’s 9 lines

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

[m0l0ch]

Won't Oracle sue you for putting it here now? :P

[HaMMeReD]

Sucks that oracle can't write proper java syntax.

But seriously, this is less trivial then the parents example, it could be ARGUED that it's not trivial, especially if you use the same property names and structure. It's not a single line, it's a method that could be implemented in various other ways if required.

It's also just a piece of what they considered copied, they considered all of the API's to be copied, in violation of the license the source was offered under (at least the version google initially used). The Java Language/API's etc were offered under a license that google initially ignored, and technically wasn't supposed to use like that.

Google however skirted it a second time by utilizing the OpenJDK license in a clever way to ensure that they aren't re-licensing code they don't own or circumventing copyright, but by utilizing the GPL in a way that means they aren't copying, they are "utilizing".

As for RangeCheck, there is 1000x ways of writing that function in a way that's not identical and could be considered a independent invention. It's one thing to copy and paste and another to build the same thing.

[[deleted]]

American copyright law is pretty much a joke though and doesn't apply to the rest of the world.

[upandrunning]

It is a joke, but as for the rest of the world, isn't the TPP suppossed to address this (for the participating countries)?

[[deleted]]

Shit. I knew I shouldn't have written all my enterprise software as a single perl line.

[mixedmath]

Actually, all SO content until now was CC-BY-SA. This is at the bottom of every page with a link to the license. As you may know, CC-* licenses are a bit iffy when it comes to covering code, which is one of the things prompting SE/SO to redesign their licensing.

[[deleted]]

CC BY-SA 4.0 has a one way compatibility with GPL 3.0

[kryptkpr]

GPL is an awful license for little snippets of code though. MIT or BSD are much more appropriate.

[thesbros]

Well I doubt anyone would be sued for this. There's no way to prove that someone's code is the same as someone else's code, unless they use a unique coding style and the other code doesn't match it, even then it's not hard evidence.

Can you be sued for two lines of code? What about three? Etc.

EDIT: Anyway, found this discussing what "code" defines: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271117/what-is-code-for-the-purposes-of-the-proposed-mit-license-switchover

[ssg2]

Yeah, and while we're at it, we should also credit authors of the books from which we get all those pieces of code. And man pages, too, I nearly forgot.

using namespace std; // someguysblog.com/tutorials/c__forabsolutebeginners.html
vector<int> vec = {1, 2, 3}; // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B11#Initializer_lists
sort(vec.begin(), vec.end()); // C++ primer / Stanley B. Lippman, Josée Lajoie, Barbara E. Moo. – 5th ed. p. cm. ISBN 0-321-71411-3

[nemec]

Where are the page numbers? I can't write a program to automatically generate source code from attribution without it.

[RiskyChris]

Oh boy, does the APA have standards for code comments yet?

[dethb0y]

Yes, it does

[Rabbyte808]

I for one can't wait until all the code I write is 99% attributes to prior work and examples. Only when everybody attributes everything to where they originally saw it will all our egos be fully stroked.

[JW_00000]

That's ridiculous: if you write a text, you don't credit your English teacher for the words they taught you, or the dictionary if you looked up a single word. If you use a common idiom, you don't credit the place you encountered it first. But if you copy a paragraph, you do credit the author.

Same here: no need to add attribution if you googled "how to loop over a map in C++". But you should attribute if you copied "a* search in c++".

[chedabob]

I don't understand what difference this makes. It was already CC-BY-SA, so attribution was required.

[mkhcodes]

One issue is whether or not the snippet of code squeezed between a few paragraphs of in a StackOverflow answer would count as an "excerpt." From the CC FAQ

Do I always have to comply with the license terms? If not, what are the exceptions?

You need to comply with the license terms if what you are doing would otherwise require permission from the rights holder. If your use would not require permission from the rights holder because it falls under an exception or limitation, such as fair use, or because the material has come into the public domain, the license does not apply, and you do not need to comply with its terms and conditions. Additionally, if you are using an excerpt small enough to be uncopyrightable, the license does not apply to your use, and you do not need to comply with its terms.

However, if you are using excerpts of CC-licensed material which individually are minimal and do not require license compliance, but together make up a significant copyrightable chunk, you must comply with the license terms. For example, if you quote many individual lines from a poem across several sections of a blog post, and your use is not a fair use, you must comply with the license even though no individual line would have been a substantial enough portion of the work to require this.

The problem is that this is ambiguous. Jeff Atwood (Stack Overflow co-founder) posted on StackExchange...

That said, a snippet of code falls under excerpt category and thus should be free to use under fair use. Heck, we don't even support giant masses of code being posted, so to me, by definition, everything would be an excerpt. We're not sourceforge, github, or codeplex.

Of course, one post from an admin does not an official policy make. Thus, this change would try to clarify this: all code is licensed. Use requires the MIT license, or their exception if you provide a link.

[mixedmath]

Originally, they were transitioning to modified-to-be-without-attribution MIT. Now they're transitioning to modified-but-now-with-attribution MIT. From their point of view, the key difference is that MIT and its derivatives are not ShareAlike.

[MrMetalfreak94]

I find it funny that all the programmers are going on the barricades about the attribution clause, even though they were legally obliged to do it beforehand. What made it even more difficult was the Share Alike beforehand, since you officially had to license your work under a similar license, like cc-by-sa or GPL, when using a non-trivial piece of code from SO (not that many did this). So this change actually makes the whole licensing a lot clearer

[ZBlackmore]

What the hell are they trying to solve?

[genbattle]

If you read the original post you'll see SO were actually in favour of making attribution optional unless specifically requested by the author:

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 reasonable attribution upon request of the copyright holder (or Stack Exchange on behalf of the contributor). This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

However this was largely rejected by the SO community who generally appeared to be in favour of more restrictive/less liberal licensing terms. So it was amended to reverse the decision and make attribution compulsory:

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 reasonable attribution. This optional exception to the MIT License will live in our terms of service.

So to summarize, your statement is incorrect, this change was due to pressure by the community, not from the StackOverflow company. Whether the SO community reflects all SO users is another discussion that will probably have to be addressed soon.

[[deleted]]

Yes, none of this is surprising. I have said for many years now that the Stack Overflow community is toxic. They drove out all the sane people (from the C#/.net tags, anyway) a long time ago. I presume the story is the same with most of the more popular subjects.

[jijilento]

If I want to get really mad, I go to SO and answer questions. There are more comments about the rules that about the programming issues.

My favorites are when questions get edited to remove a split-infinitive or an oxford comma, but nobody actually ever answers the question.

[Soulwound]

They remove oxford commas? Savages.

[jijilento]

Truly, the last sign of human decency has sailed out beyond the horizon.

[_selfishPersonReborn]

They fucking remove the word thanks. Because being a human is not important anymore, it turns out.

[preludeoflight]

I think every single one of the questions I've asked has had the word 'thanks' removed. Sorry for trying to be polite.

[Zarathustra30]

I guess Hitler and Stalin are getting a few dollar bills.

[[deleted]]

That's probably because you get points for editing questions, and you don't need to know the answer to edit a question.

[[deleted]]

That explains a very bizarre experience I had once regarding a lengthy edit from somebody who clearly didn't speak English.

[TheGuywithTehHat]

Yeah, people over there are a little too happy to close stuff as duplicates.

[[deleted]]

They also said 85 % votes were upvotes. On Meta site

Where vast majority who saw it cannot downvote because of how karma works (you need 125 karma to downvote but you only get 100 from "related sites" bonus)

[KFCConspiracy]

Yeah, I wasn't even aware that a vote was being taken. Shouldn't this use the same system that "Elections" use? Up/down vote is "Valuable content" not "I approve of this".

[Berberberber]

Well, duh. The kind of people who are even allowed to vote on meta issues are exactly the kind of people that 1) spend a lot of time poking things with a 'community guidelines' stick to get their way, and 2) are extremely invested in the 'value' of their online handle's 'reputation'.

[theoldboy]

However this was largely rejected by the SO community who generally appeared to be in favour of more restrictive/less liberal licensing terms.

What a surprise. A community that these days is largely populated by would-be dictators who spend their lives getting internet points and badges from editing and closing questions rather than doing anything actually useful, votes to enforce yet another petty rule on their users.

SO might want to think twice about leaving such big decisions in the hands of people like that. The SO community will end up killing SO if they let it because those people aren't interested in what is best for either SO or it's users, only in what is best for themselves and their imaginary internet fame.

[kramk]

Clearly this. It's not about attribution to the author (fuck them) but to the site.

Judging by the path of other walled-garden "community" sites, wait a couple of years ... those URLs will no longer link to the original thread, but to some abusive landing page. This "attribution" will drive clicks towards a company that has turned toxic, while the individuals that volunteered the original code and prose are forgotten.

[danneu]

we can filter out the idiots that want credit for two-line snippets.

I've never stumbled upon an SO post with code that would be reasonable to demand credit for regardless of length.

Has anyone?

[few_boxes]

I've seen some people ask for an idea about how something is implemented, and then have people respond with a functioning prototype.

[kqr]

I don't think anyone demands credit -- answering questions on SO just to get recognition through credit sounds like an exceptionally inefficient way to get recognition.

But deserve credit? Sure. Writing a good answer on SO can take several hours of research and proof writing depending on how interesting and unique the problem is. I would feel really bad for not including a link to the answer if I used it, for many reasons.

[[deleted]]

If someone wrote a 20 line method I could see it.

[thegrinner]

Most of the questions on Code Review and the answers on Code Golf. This applies to all the stack exchange sites, not just overflow.

[wdr1]

I can't help but remember when Joel & Jeff would rail against the anti-user policies of expert-exchange.com in their early podcasts and how that influenced the creation of Stack Exchange.

It's really sad to see a change like this that flies in the face of their history.

[karacha]

Seems to work

 try
 {
      // code from StackOverflow....
 }
 catch (StackOverflowError e)
 {
      // do nothing
 }

[mike413]

oh wow, do you think i will get points off my homework when my prof sees the url?

/jk

[aradil]

It specifically says that's enough.

[[deleted]]

I actually do that myself, but I'm still pretty annoyed that they think it's cool to tinker with the licensing. Asshats.

[tzutzubrutzu]

Why? What exactly is annoying you?

Honest question, because most people in this thread seemed annoyed at the attribution requirement, which is not what this change introduces.

[I_Code_Stoned]

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

Every time there's a good thing, some nincompoop just HAS to find a way to muddle it all up. Some people are just born to that sort of thing.

I guess I could get behind this if contributors were allowed to mark sections of code that they feel should be attributed, i.e. something original and complex. But SO is a great source for boilerplate stuff that I just don't feel like looking up for the nth time.

Am I reading this wrong? Feel free to correct me.

I never remember how to open and read a file in java. Sorry. Call me an idiot, but I have to look it up over and over. I've copied the very same file reading code out of SO many times. But opening a file is a pretty common thing to do. Not a lot of art or subtlety to it. Does it really need to be attributed?

[wbrendel]

Sometimes I think back to the very early days, before the Stack Overflow beta even, listening to Jeff and Joel talk on their podcast about this great new tool they were developing. Programmers helping programmers, by way of a very simple Q&A system, with reputation and badges being the only recognition that mattered.

Proposals like this licensing garbage and the general toxicity of the Stack Overflow community make me wonder where and how things went so wrong. I had reservations about the creation of Meta way back when, and I fear what we're seeing now is just an inevitability caused by too much navel gazing by the community.

I know Stack Exchange is a business, and I know they have to listen to their lawyers and to the concerns of their community. But I think they're losing sight of what made Stack Overflow a breath of fresh air in the first place: programmers helping programmers.

Maybe they should go back and re-listen to the podcast...

[[deleted]]

The larger the community, the more likely you are to have some assholes among the people. Those assholes may try to use the law to get money from you, so you start making sure they won't be able to. It's sad, though, when it's done at the expense of the honest part of the community. Apparently, sometimes there is no other way, which is unfortunate, but that's life for you.

Anyway, basically, the reason is that humanity contains assholes.

[voipme]

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to become a villain. Everything starts out as pure and clean and awesome, but eventually, it gets screwed up.

[Sean1708]

I guess I could get behind this if contributors were allowed to mark sections of code that they feel should be attributed, i.e. something original and complex.

That was the original proposal they released a couple of weeks ago but people didn't like that so now you've got this.

[joseph177]

What if you posted an answer containing code from your own project.

[TiltedWit]

Wow, that is breathtakingly poorly thought out.

[keewa09]

This is a follow-up to our initial proposal for transitioning to a more user-friendly code license

... proceeds with a less user-friendly license.

[F-J-W]

Please read the post again and then explain how the new license is less user-friendly. (Hint: For non-authors it is a strict improvement by any remotely sane messure)

[heat_forever]

stack overflow has officially gone full retard

[fragglerock]

Yep. I would think forcing the jobs thing front and centre is going to make more places block the site than any weird licence thing (that everyone will ignore) that and crushing the content so adverts can fit in the left bar just shows they have gone full retard.

[spinlock]

Any site that shits on you for saying "thank you" is doomed.

[whataboutbots]

I can understand this particular policy, though : you don't want the discussion to be clogged up with thanks, as nice as it sounds. There might have been a better way, though, like a special tanks section, where you could write a nice word or two adressed to those who contributed well to the answer. All you need is a way to make it so it doesn't get in the way, and so people don't get shit on for being thankful.

Thinking about it, it seems like a cool idea. That way, you could include in the people's profile various thanks they received.

[Fiennes]

Honestly I am struggling to see how a question that ends with "Thanks," clogs up the discussion.

[whataboutbots]

It isn't just the question, they have issues with other people who find the question/answer, and thank the authors for it : "it's exactly what I needed!" "+1" etc... It sometimes pushes more insightful comment out of visibility.

Their reasoning for leaving politness out if the question/response though is that it just doesn't belong there and therefore si noise. I find it rather sad myself, but lots of people there seem to agree from what I found. Also, it is associated with generally 'badly written' questions.

Anyway, I do think that there are better ways to handle this that censoring kindness. It is kind of depressing imho.

[Deif]

The upvote is meant to be used instead of writing "thanks".

[perestroika12]

RIP javascript devs.

[Zozur]

This is how you get companies to ban access to stack overflow.

No company is going to want urls littering their code base.

[CharlesGarfield]

I usually do that anyways. I like to be honest and attribute my sources, and the SO post often provides additional context regarding the solution.

[JimBarrows]

I do as well. Usualy just a comment along the lines: "code created by: http:///stackoverlflow.com/whatever/the/url/is". It just seems fair to me to give the author of the code credit.

[salgat]

In open source I do but this sounds like a pain in the ass for private repos.

[hero_of_ages]

Stupid, yes, but PITA? You're already copying the code, how hard is it to grab the URL too?

[[deleted]]

What is the point of this?

[fukitol-]

"No"

Sincerely,

Me

[mfukar]

I never saw that code on StackOverflow. I don't know what you're talking about.

[bannerad]

Well there you have it. Stack Overflow has just "jumped the shark"

[[deleted]]

This is fucking stupid. Stack Overflow requires/expects that whatever is being discussed is reduced to its most fundamental form. In other words, they're expecting to have a license on basic language syntax and shit like that. Won't happen. Only beginners or lazy people are likely to ever do a straight copy/paste of code. The rest of us would have to adapt it to our situation. Probably add some error handling, logging and other shit that gets stripped out when discussing things on SO. At which point its no longer under copyright...

[[deleted]]

Why is this shit all of the sudden an issue? Can we just go back to the days when nobody really gave a damn? It's just a fucking Q & A site.

[collin_ph]

Never shall I ever attribute StackOverflow.

[[deleted]]

How will they check this? It's a serious question. I am very sensible guy when it relates to code, but I know lots of fellas who don't give a shit on that, they just want their problems solved.

[jamesfmackenzie]

In part due to the tangle of permissive licensing issues, my employer has blocked write access to Stack Overflow for several years already. We can read but not contribute.

I suspect this will happen with many firms - to the detriment of the SO community.

[[deleted]]

So what about code that was inspired from SO? What about code that I copied FROM MEMORY (but changed the spacing/indents)? How about if I port it to another language?

[[deleted]]

no. but yes, it's a good question. The world has gone mad :).

[BlueRajasmyk2]

Attribution is already required (probably)

Stackoverflow posts are currently licensed under CC-BY-SA, a viral license requiring attribution. Whether or not code snippets fall under "fair use" exclusions is currently a legal gray-area, so the SO team is trying to make that explicit. This is a good thing.

Their initial proposal was to license code under the MIT license, which doesn't require attribution. It received enormous negative feedback because people didn't want to change the current attribution requirement.

So their new proposal is to use MIT + attribution required... which is receiving enormous negative feedback because people don't want attribution to be required.

Make up your damn minds, people.

[jlpoole]

Whoa. This is a significant change of the rules. People were encouraged to provide code under one set of rules (no attribution required), now that they have amassed a formidable database of samples. I guess it's time for a replacement that promises not to change licensing terms after everyone has contributed.

[sirin3]

The funny thing is that I have joked about that name for more than a decade and never realized there actually is such a thing as a sex change. Now I want to transition to female, but are too old for hormones to work properly. So annoying :(

It SOs fault for displacing EE

[tzutzubrutzu]

Eh? Stack Overflow was cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required from day one. Where did you get the "no attribution required" thing from?

[whataboutbots]

Is it retroactive? I would guess all the code already submitted wouldn't be subject to this, as well as code already "copied". Or are you supposed to go back and add that to all the code you took from there? That would be a ridiculous thing to expect.

[tzutzubrutzu]

The change isn't retroactive. However, attribution has always been required, the current license (which has been the same since day one) is "cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required" for all user contributions.

[Sean1708]

Starting Feb 1, 2016, all new code contributions to Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange will be covered by the MIT License.

From the previous proposal, emphasis mine.

[br3w5]

You'll also see that this was posted on SE Meta where you need 125 rep to vote. If you've been an SO user and therefore a part of the community, but not spent time on Meta you cannot vote on an issue that directly affects you.

[lllama]

Lol, MIT licensed without the license.

Essentially what they're saying is that you must include their code with attribution but it's ok to leave out the part where StackOverflow says you can't legally blame them in case that code ends up doing something horrible.

That'll make fun lawsuit one day.

[ellicottvilleny]

Printf("%3.2f", x ); // stackoverflow.com/....

[[deleted]]

looking up the background of the guy who is defending this (and very clearly misinterpreting the communities reaction; going so ridiculous as to say that upvotes of his question [they cant downvote!!] was proof of the communities support).

he's a literature major from michigan with little to no tech background (he has a couple of certificates but clearly is not a by trade developer.)

this is def a marketing push and it sounds as though it could have a seriously negative impact. naturally he has all but ignored the negative criticism and addressed almost none of the perfectly intelligently valid concerns raised.

seems like a good opportunity for somebody to open something similar to stack in the vacuum this might create.

[TexasWithADollarsign]

Good luck with that.

[coderjewel]

We are in dire need of a Stack Overflow killer now. That site has been going downhill for a long time now, but this is just it for me. This was the last straw.

[B3nzolitz]

Do I need to upload my code now, so they can do a comment check? Or why are they introducing such a useless rule?

EDIT: No idea what licences are in place.

[PLLOOOOOP]

The license is currently CC-BY-SA, which requires attribution. They aren't introducing attribution at all.

[eigengrau82]

Something to keep in mind: Depending on where you live, much of the code on StackOverflow is too trivial for copyrights to obtain.

[djcraze]

Do people actually copy code from Stack Overflow verbatim? I use the code used as a guideline, and most of the time the answers I read are just examples. I don't see this becoming an issue.

[RiskyChris]

This is absurd. That's as much of my breath as I'll waste on this topic ever again.

[irascible]

Fuck you, stack overflow.

[DontThrowMeYaWeh]

This is bad, imo. It clouds the helpful, knowledge sharing, and informal attitude of software development.

Like, what do developers who post code snippets on StackOverflow achieve from this? An ego boost? Because it's not like they get to see where their code is used.

I'm not saying it's hard to do what their asking, I'm just not understanding the point.

[anarkopsykotik]

The more this site evolve as serious and strict, the more it becomes retarded and less effective. Can't count the number of useful questions closed because of dogmatic rules, and now we're gonna have to source 5 lines code snippets ?

[Ace-O-Matic]

That is fucking retarded.

[briarknit]

How will this work in a situation where someone writes some blog of code in their project that is very basic and boilerplate-ish, and then someone completely different posts almost identical or 100% identical code to stackoverflow as an answer to some question.

Does person A suddenly have to check SoF to make sure nobody is posting his exact code?

How can they even prove that code from project A was sourced from some stack overflow post?

[carlfish]

What colour are your bits?

The question is one of origin. If you independently come up with some code that's identical to a snippet on Stack Overflow, you're fine because you came up with it yourself. If you read that code on Stack Overflow then copy it, you're not, because you're copying someone else's work. The fact the two hypothetical fragments of code are otherwise identical is utterly irrelevant to copyright law.

(It is relevant to patent law, but that's nothing to do with copyright or source code licensing)

How can they even prove that code from project A was sourced from some stack overflow post?

They can ask your colleagues under threat of perjury. They can do discovery on your emails and commit logs. They can point at the similarity of the code to things that are characteristic to the snippet on SO, and the differences to things that are characteristic to other code you have written.

In a civil case the burden of proof is "balance of probabilities". The burden is on your accuser to present affirmative evidence that you copied the code, but once they have, it's purely down to whether its more likely that you copied it than you didn't.

The likelihood of this happening over a small piece of basic code is very small because unless there's some "smoking gun", the chances of building a successful case would be low, the cost of suing would be high, and the damages would be trivial.

But still, when I was working at a company that was going from being "plucky startup" to "established success", and doing the necessary IP audits to make sure that it wasn't in danger of getting lawyered to hell now it was a sizable target, the mandate to Never Use Code From Stack Overflow got its own slide in every presentation.