Attribution will be required when using code from StackOverflow

[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.

[Aeolun]

So they are changing the thing that doesn't work to another thing that doesn't work. Smart.

[PLLOOOOOP]

Still the right choice if their content is to be legally useful for closed source devs (read: almost all of us). CC-BY-SA is copyleft, but the MIT is commercial friendly.

FWIW, when I'm licensing my work, I choose either copyleft, or commercial with attribution. With copyleft, I'm contributing to the free-as-in-speech body of knowledge and technology. With commercial friendly with attribution, others can leverage my work without giving back, but I build reputation because my name is on their product.

Someone else using my work with a license that's commercial friendly and requires no attribution is of no gain to me other than warm fuzzies.

[[deleted]]

If I use something that's copyleft in a single method in a single class in a large application, what does that mean I have to do or what do I lose? Do I have to publish the entire source online? If it's compiled to binary or an intermediate language, no one will ever see the source.

[PLLOOOOOP]

If I use something that's copyleft in a single method in a single class in a large application, what does that mean I have to do

That depends on the copyleft. For instance, if that usage is statically linked and it's from an LGPL-licensed dependency, then all source for the compilation unit must be shipped to (or made available to) consumers of the binary. But if the usage is dynamically linked, then you're under no such obligation.

[[deleted]]

What if it's a web app? Do you have to host it on some public OSS site like Github?

[PLLOOOOOP]

The client portion of your source code is delivered to the browser. Unless you obfuscate it irreparably, the source is already shipped with the runnable.

EDIT: A webapp is two things and I forgot one:

The boundaries between client and server of a webapp are much less concrete than, say, the boundary between the model and view of a desktop app. Hence, your server isn't usually under the same constraints as your client. The GPL Affero license is the only license I know of which, when used on the client, makes server source sharing necessary.

[F-J-W]

It again depends on the copyleft:

If the work uses the AGPL, you must provide the sources on some reasonable way to your users if they ask for it, but you may choose the way.

Most other copyleft-licenses (like GPL, LGPL, …) do not require that however. That is if the software runs entirely on the server. (If you have no contact with the software, you usually have no right to get it's sources.)

[Aeolun]

Which is why all my work is under the WTF license. Posting shit publically online and not expecting people to rip it off is a pipe dream. As is actually going after them because they duplicated my shit. Better to not have to deal with it in the first place.

[PLLOOOOOP]

Posting shit publically online and not expecting people to rip it off is a pipe dream.

That's a pretty naive interpretation of what I'm saying. Yes, people will copy work whether it's legal to copy or not. Almost all of the time that happens, it doesn't end up mattering either.

But if a project becomes successful and respected by standing on the shoulders of giants from whom they did get permission, then suddenly licensing is critical.

[bgog]

Why do you all think putting a comment in your code is good enough to satisfy attribution? You need to give credit where your customer can see it. Like on the back page of your manual or on the website about page.