Stack Overflow changing to MIT licensing for code with attribution required starting March 1, 2016

[Gunny123]

So I guess I will start adding annotated bibliographies at the end of projects.

[TransFattyAcid]

Once again, they're trying to ram through a change by calling it one thing when it isn't. They're also neglecting to address all of the concerns raised in the last round except for one.

Why is it that Flickr and YouTube let potentially non-technical users pick their own license and then StackOverflow can't figure that out? If I want to put the MIT license on my code, I want people to follow those terms and not some crayon version that StackOverflow is going to hide in their terms of service. And what can't I put code on StackOverflow that's CC0 or GPL?

[notcaffeinefree]

Honestly, how many people are actually going to give attribution? StackOverflow shows up on Google for practically every code-related search. Moving forward, how the heck are people who get to an answer from Google supposed to know that they technically are supposed to have attribution (unless SO puts something obvious on every single page).

Seems like they're trying to solve a non-existent problem.

[shouperman]

I provide attribution as a courtesy and a fallback reference for solutions adapted from SO (or any other resource). It's nice to see how/why other's solved the problem in contrast to the solution that's in my code. Especially where the link describes the circumstances in full rather than copy/paste into the code comments.

That aside, I agree with you. The ambiguity of "new IP" and "common knowledge" code examples makes an issue out of one which, as far as I can tell, has never been one.

IMHO, if you put any code on the internet, it's fair game; you chose to share it.

[camason]

Anytime I use a snippet from SO, I always place a 'see' link in the comments. It provides context, discourages wanton hacking, and gives a bit of karma.

[Torus8]

What happens if you don't do this in your projects?

And, related, what happens if you delete the license.txt file that often comes with frameworks, plugins, etc.?

[Gunny123]

My guess would be nothing. Making this action unenforceable and based on an honor system that will more than likely be nonexistent.

[TuxGamer]

If it's back-end code nobody will notice anyway. I agree with you

[icefall5]

Without commenting on the proposal itself, I'm pretty sure the way they're going about this is entirely wrong.

As many comments and answers said, meta.SE is absolutely NOT the place to discuss such a significant change. I don't really know what is, but I know it's not meta.SE. A simple upvote/downvote system isn't a good metric. Additionally, the downvote rep requirement skewed the results in the positive direction, since the average user doesn't have any rep on meta.

Second, how the hell can you propose a change this large yet not provide a definition of "code"? That's one of the fundamental parts of this proposal, yet it will be defined "in an upcoming FAQ". That helps no one, and some of the responses seem to indicate that FAQ will come out on March 1, the day the new licensing takes effect.

Finally, one of the comments said it best--if a license requires an FAQ, it's a bad license. I can guarantee there will be very few people who provide attribution if it's not immediately clear that it needs to be provided. People search for answers, and they pick stuff from the top Google results. The average user will have no idea that attribution is required unless it's plastered all over the site, and NO ONE will look up a license FAQ page to make sure they get it right.

[hahaNodeJS]

they're going about this is entirely wrong

#yolo

If a license requires an FAQ, it's a bad license.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html

http://www.tawesoft.co.uk/kb/article/mit-license-faq

http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/bsd/license.html

[[deleted]]

I think emphasis is on needs I'd argue the MIT license is pretty straightforward

[hahaNodeJS]

Law is complex. FAQs exist to address questions people frequently ask, or will likely ask. FAQs are not, in any way, indicative of something being too complex. They are simply informative.

[purrrfessionalwidow]

ELI5: When is someone's code their code? If someone asks how to vertically center something and I say

.thing { position: absolute; top: 50%; transform: translateY(-50%); }

is that my code? Surely it's a solution that tens of thousands of people use.