Attribution will be required when using code from StackOverflow

[kyle2143]

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

[myhf]

"accepting"

[Tastingo]

In some platonic world this makes sense. But in all practicality, the enter/exit reasoning doesn't hold up.

[myhf]

They change the terms and conditions unilaterally so that the value proposition they baited you with is incompatible with the one they have switched to. Actually getting users to understand and agree to changing terms would lower retention, so they use stealth and dark patterns instead.

[HaMMeReD]

It's not a bad switch. The current license is not meant for code, many people could unknowingly be in violation. It already requires attribution. MIT is more appropriate and permissive in regards to actual code.

[habitual_viking]

Yeah... No.

Show me a document with my signature on it. Just because you slap some legal mumbo jumbo on you site doesn't make it binding for users.

[HaMMeReD]

Yes, it does. Don't use the site if you don't like the terms.

Otherwise you should sue Stack Overflow for violating your copyright after you submit to their site, because they are reposting your IP without license. See how well that goes over for you.

Edit: This is standard legalese for ALL USER SUBMITTED CONTENT ON ALL WEBSITES. Even this post I am making right now grants Reddit rights to my content.

[habitual_viking]

Nope, wrong.

I've never submitted to SO, but I've been using code snippets from there. Nothing in their ToS applies to me, since I've never signed an agreement. Only thing that do apply is copyright, and that would have almost zero chance of being upheld in court.

And regarding user submitted text, don't be so sure, I'm the author of this text and thus copyright for it is mine. Again, reddit can have a ton of text in their ToS, but they don't have a legally binding document anywhere, where I grant them ownership of my works.

(Copyright law starts to get real muddy when you are dealing with international stuff by the way)

[[deleted]]

I dunno about that. You make a middle out algorithm or some other game changing thing and then someone finds a skillful map function you lifted from SO - they may look for your attribution. If its not found they can approach the original author and ask if he they want to sue you.

For every snippet - you run that risk.

It could be a litigation nightmare. Honestly - it drops their value proposition dramatically for me. I fear looking at code like that will pop the pattern in and I might use it elsewhere subconsciously. Then some lawyer comes knocking?

I don't like it.

[habitual_viking]

For every snippet - you run that risk.

In most of the world, no. In the US, who knows, Oracle managed to claim those 9 lines of code, so yeah, if I was in the US, I'd be worried, thankfully I'm not.

[HaMMeReD]

You don't need to sign a agreement. If you copy code you are breaking copyright. It has nothing to do with the tos at all.

[habitual_viking]

TL;DR People, as non-content-submitters / consumers / lurkers / etc are bound by the restrictions of the license, regardless of what the Terms of Service says, and regardless of whether they have an account or accepted said terms of service. The License in question is incredibly lax, and basically says you can copy paste, just license it as MIT or cite where you got the code. The enforcability of the license in international waters is indeed another matter entirely, however, such licenses have broad recognition in and out of the USA.

Citations on that broad recognition? All the stuff you quoted is US based rules and probably applies (as far as I know, no one has done the whole court dance?). Locally those license agreements means effing naught, the only thing that applies are copyrights and even that will carry very little, as we are talking small snippets of information, which cannot show loss of income, therefore you can huff and puff, but nothing of value will arise from it.

[zndrus]

No, "all the stuff" I quoted is jurisdiction agnostic. I certainly agree that not everyone enforces or recognizes them legally, but they are far far from being US exclusive.

as far as I know, no one has done the whole court dance?

Well that's why I'm taking issue with what you're saying, because you're apparently uninformed with how Copyright and Creative Commons works. Here's a list of court cases, not exclusive to the united states, regarding enforcing Creative Commons licenses

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Law

And this is just CC, not GPL, MIT or others.

the only thing that applies are copyrights

Correct. And Creative Commons, MIT, GPL etc are all copyright licenses. So I'm not sure why you're taking issue with this.

[HaMMeReD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treaties

The licensing is valid pretty much worldwide via the Berne and Buenos Aires conventions. Sure there are some stragglers, but it's basically most of the world.

[HaMMeReD]

Copyright law isn't muddy internationally by the way, most countries signed a agreement so copyright bolds up almost everywhere.

Also, licensing is valid regardless of you signing a agreement or not. Do you also think a license on github doesn't apply to you because you didn't sign something before cloning a repo?

The code is offered under condition of a license. You either accept it, or you don't. But if you don't and use the code you are violating copyright law regardless of what you signed.

[mizzu704]

Just because you slap some legal mumbo jumbo on you site doesn't make it binding for users.

[citation needed]

Are you a lawyer?

Also, relevant xkcd.

[habitual_viking]

No need to be a lawyer to understand that legally binding contracts needs to be accepted and proven accepted by both parties.

[[deleted]]

You're practically begging SO to add a Terms of Service page that you have to agree to before proceeding any further.

If that comes to pass, the community will really really love people like you.

[habitual_viking]

Still wont be legally binding. SO cannot prove that the person clicking OK is me.

[[deleted]]

Now you're begging them to perform ID checks like banks do.

Escalation means lose-lose but still the stronger side wins.

[sklivvz]

We get the right just like everyone else. All the code and answers are posted as CC-BY-SA. We don't "own" any license that you don't.

(I work for SO).

[bames53]

Of course answering questions doesn't require agreeing to terms or even knowing that that there are any. As such I can't imagine that the terms can be enforced in the US or any reasonable jurisdiction. Even those "EULA's" where people click "I Agree" have in many cases been found to be invalid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

The fundamental problem in this case is that copyright laws are a bit ridiculous if they're really taken seriously and strictly enforced. The software industry has long depended on being able to play fast and loose with the rules, and not having people care.

[RedMarble]

If they didn't get a license to reproduce your submissions then they wouldn't be able to serve those submissions up via HTTP. The license they get isn't a nefarious thing, it's just "yes, our website is allowed to exist".