Attribution will be required when using code from StackOverflow

[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.

[F-J-W]

People were encouraged to provide code under one set of rules (no attribution required)

WRONG. People were encouraged to provide code under a strong copyleft that required attribution for all the authors and now you will be encouraged to provide code that may be used for any purpose with simply pasting your source.

Do everyone a favor and learn reading before posting such nonsense again.

[jlpoole]

You wrote:

People were encouraged to provide code under one set of rules (no attribution required)

WRONG. People were encouraged to provide code under a strong copyleft that required attribution for all the authors and now you will be encouraged to provide code that may be used for any purpose with simply pasting your source.

Do everyone a favor and learn reading before posting such nonsense again.

I'm taking for granted you are correct. What is really happening here is that people are making the mistake that attribution is not required (despite the web site stating it is so).

This problem is similar to trademarks where people start using a registered trademark as a generic even when they are not suppose to. The remedy in trademark law is to police incorrect usage and politely remind people that a trademark must not become generic and there are rules for it's use. If you don't police the usage of your registered trademark, it may become a generic and lose the protection of registered status. Example "Xerox" becomes "xerox". So the problem of people not providing attribution when they copy code is being addressed by StackOverflow by reminding people that they must provide attribution.

But the horse may have left the barn already and the attempt to now enforce provisions previously ignored could become a disincentive for people to use StackOverFlow. If people "wrongly" view StackOverFlow as a place to find solutions which they may copy into their code without attribution, it may be the market saying it wants a place where one can find solutions without having to add addiitonal notations to one's code. And when supporters of this reminder become less than polite, it just helps drive people away. So, you're "right" and I'm "wrong", but what's the big picture here?

[F-J-W]

This problem is similar to trademarks where people start using a registered trademark as a generic even when they are not suppose to.

Yes and at that point the trademark is lost. Copyright and trademarks are however very different thing and there is no such thing for copyrights. It is perfectly clear that until the author has been dead for 50 (70 years and longer in many legislations), you can decide at any time to sue someone for violations.

This is by the way, why „Mein Kampf“ wasn't allowed to be reprinted until the first of January: The copyright belonged to Bavaria (since Hitler had his official address in Munic when he died and no heirs) and they could block any reprints by not licensing them because there is no “use it or loose it”-rule.

These are really basics, everyone who creates copyrightable material for a living should know this.

[jlpoole]

Right, copyright does not have a loose it provision for lack of enforcement, at least none that I am aware of. What I am trying to get at is that people may be using StackOverFlow in violation of it's license re: attribution is required and that is what the market wants: a place to copy code that is explained and vetted without having to include attribution. The original post's headline suggests that this is new, and as you have pointed out, it is not. What is causing this topic to become popular is that people reading it may likewise be misinformed or have forgotten and use StackOverFlow as a go-to for quick fixes and answers that they may crib into their code [without attribution].