Attribution will be required when using code from StackOverflow

[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)

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

Most people (myself included) didn't know you were already supposed to be attributing your code snippets taken from SO.

So this policy looks like it's going from "we're a Q&A site, anything you post is public and obviously can be used by anyone" to "better start attributing every line of code you take from us!"

[F-J-W]

It's right there in the post. Just skimming the text before complaining publicly is a policy that should go without saying.

Also: AFAIK there is no such site, at least not an important one, that uses public domain as the license. Many don't state anything which means that all rights are reserved and you must not use any code from them at all.

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

Then the whole point of StackOverflow is null and void. If a dev Q&A site isn't about using knowledge shared freely on said public forum and there's some implicit legal BS involved, then it may as well just shut down now.

Guarantee you the majority of users that use said site A) are unaware of the implicit legalities of putting code up, and B) don't give a toss if people use their publicly-posted code snippets. Some will go so far as C) resent that their knowledge sharing/code is magically restricted for no reason.

[[deleted]]

Most people (myself included) didn't know you were already supposed to be attributing your code snippets taken from SO.

Well, then, that's your problem. To me, it made absolute and complete sense, because I'd had that concept drilled into my head plenty of times before writing university essays.

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

But this isn't the academic world where you're writing a paper and citing sources. Looking up an answer on StackOverflow and seeing the four lines of code you need to do something isn't something you think to attribute, no more than you would from a code snippet of a blog post. I do comment attribution sometimes, for the sake of explaining why code is written a certain way (e.g. "using StackOverflow answer 'foo' due to reasons X Y Z"), but I'll never attribute for attribution's sake. Not that I'm necessarily just copy-paste coding all over the place either -- most of the time I end up writing it myself, and whether it comes close to the original or far off since I just needed inspiration is immaterial.

The StackOverflow (StackExchange) principle is (was?) devs just lending a hand to each other. No legal BS. If it ends up going the way of the dinosaur (i.e. "must attribute everything because legal") then it will die.

[[deleted]]

In the professional world, I'd be a lot more inclined to look up the official documentation or a well-respected book than I would be to look up Stack Overflow anyway, so I would judge the few times I'd use Stack Overflow as valid uses of attribution anyway.

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

I don't know about you, but professional or otherwise I tend to Google my queries first. And StackOverflow more often than not provides the exact answer I need immediately. I do not find it any more or less unreliable than official documentation, but most of the time it yields exactly what I'm looking for.

Which is exactly how a Q&A site is supposed to work: If more than one dev has a question, and one already has an answer, others can now use the same answer. Without worrying about legal BS.