
A New Code License: The MIT, This Time with Attribution Required - aaron-lebo
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272956/a-new-code-license-the-mit-this-time-with-attribution-required
======
greggman
Why can't SO just say, "If you post code here it's public domain" (or some
other license that says no action required, no attribution required, copy at
will)

I've posted quite a bit of code on SO. I don't want attribution. That is not
my goal. That's is an anti-goal for me. I don't want to make it harder to use
code in my code. I want to make it easier. I don't even want a link back to
SO.

Sure if I write some 1000+ line library on github I might want attribution but
I have no such desire on SO.

Am I a rare case? Do most SO contributors want attribution?

~~~
zamalek
> Do most SO contributors want attribution?

The highest voted answer on the original proposal[1] authoritatively asserts
that _absolutely_ everyone wants attribution. It uses the example of O'Reilly
ripping off answers for a book without providing attribution. Like you I get
my fix from simply helping people out and I would be overjoyed if someone
ripped off an answer of mine and put it in a book (sans attribution). However,
like that highest voted answer, don't make the mistake of thinking that
everyone is the same.

The obvious solution is to allow people to choose the license for their
answers. That is still a bad solution because it violates this principle:

> I don't want to make it harder to use code in my code.

For that reason I don't mind having people providing an attribution code
comment when they use my answers because a blanket rule-set is easier to
follow than dozens of different rule-sets; especially for something as
completely inconsequential as a code snippet.

[1]:
[http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/271113/168017](http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/271113/168017)

~~~
tamana
Meta is a special subset of SO users.

------
dineshp2
I find this move by the Stack Exchange network annoying and it seems like they
are trying to cash in on the monopoly that they have built up recently as the
ultimate Q&A site for developers(and others maybe).

On a more serious(or lighter) note, how about building a similar website as
the Stack Exchange network without the new licensing restrictions and a better
UI to begin with and launch before March 1,2016? It's an oppurtunistic time to
cash in on this unpopular licensing requirement.

A new startup idea maybe?

~~~
kzhahou
Interestingly, stackoverflow's data loses value fairly quickly with time,
since new langs and dad's come so quickly. So while they dominate today, they
could be replaced.

~~~
r00fus
Amusingly most of my recent posts are not exactly desired, but the old goodies
"copy folder structure without files in bash" and "How to handle exceptions on
[6 year old] JS grid" keep getting upvotes because they're interesting to
folks who are new to the area.

They were questions I had at the time, and tech I worked with that I don't any
longer but still in wide use.

How old is bash anyway?

~~~
LoSboccacc
same, I've a "How to pretty print XML from Java?" answer which has been
collecting 10 point a week or more since 2008

------
SeanDav
An obvious problem (and one that was highlighted but seemingly ignored) is
that you require a significant amount of reputation on Meta in order to get
the ability to down-vote something proposed on Meta - i.e. the proposed
licence changes. You can only earn this by gaining reputation on Meta itself,
so even if you are a prolific and highly rated contributor to other
Stackexchange sites you may well have not been able to down vote the proposal,
even if you wanted to.

This is obviously going to skew any voting decision in favour of the upvotes.
so the 85% approval rating for the changes may not have been anything like
that.

In any case, it appears that many of the upvotes were by people approving the
idea that the licence terms needed to be re-evaluated, not they necessarily
approved of the licence changes as proposed at the time. In fact, by far, the
most heavily upvoted individual comments were very much against the proposed
changes.

------
mc808
Legal and ethical issues aside, if I'm straight-up copying code from Stack
Overflow, it's probably because I don't quite understand it, so I'm going to
keep a link to the question (and pray that it doesn't get deleted for being
non-constructive) just for future reference. Shame, shame, I know.

~~~
carbocation
Alternatively, you might have copied and pasted because it's so short and
common that there isn't really another way to do it.

------
weinzierl
I never understood how attribution worked on Stackoverflow anyway.

    
    
        1. I post something to SO and the terms say it is CC-BY-SA. 
        2. Someone uses my post and properly links back to SO.
           SO's terms require this. 
    

Shouldn't the attribution primarily mention me, the author of the post? How
can a link back to SO be required as attribution for my content? It's not that
I assigned my copyright to SO, I just posted my CC-BY-SA content on their
site. SO is just the middleman.

I'm OK with attributing SO and I don't doubt the terms are legally clean. I
just goes against my understanding of CC-BY-SA. as well as the new SO MIT
attribution construction.

~~~
detaro
They say that attributions should mention the author of the post, and also did
so before? Or are you arguing against mentioning SO at all? It would be
interesting if that part would be enforceable.

[https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-
required/](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/)

~~~
weinzierl

        Or are you arguing against mentioning SO at all?
    

Not really arguing against that because I think it's fair. Playing devil's
advocate I can't see how it is legally justified though.

    
    
        It would be interesting if that part would be enforceable.
    

Yes, this is the interesting question.

------
X-Istence
When I post code samples on Stack Overflow I want them to be freely useable,
under the MIT license. However I don't want nor require attribution. In other
words, I am perfectly fine with someone using my code on SO for any purpose
what so ever.

This attribution required nonsense is annoying. I freely share my knowledge,
anyone can use it, I would expect the same from everyone else that posts their
code.

~~~
mijoharas
The MIT licence does require attribution[0][1]

[0]
[https://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/218331/what-...](https://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/218331/what-
are-the-requirements-for-attribution-in-the-mit-license)

[1] [https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)

------
preinheimer
Many posts turn into copy/pastes of solutions found elsewhere. A direct result
of: 1) not allowing answers that are just links to elsewhere, regardless of
how appropriate or canonical the resource and 2) a mad dash to answer first to
maximize internet points (karma).

Will they start policing their own platform for copyright woes?

~~~
Shog9
1) broken links are kind of a big problem.
[http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300916/i-estimate-10...](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300916/i-estimate-10-of-
the-links-posted-here-are-dead-how-do-we-deal-with-them)

2) plagiarism (regardless of copyright) is strongly discouraged.
[http://stackoverflow.com/help/referencing](http://stackoverflow.com/help/referencing)

------
michaeloder
If Stack Overflow wants attribution to happen in practice, they should
facilitate it by adding a copy to clipboard button that would automatically
add the desired attribution to code blocks. This would have an order of
magnitude greater impact on the actual amount of attribution taking place than
simply clarifying the licensing terms.

That being said, I am concerned that the requirement for attribution creates
significant legal landmines for anyone who doesn't follow the practice and
many users of the service will not be aware of the requirement or it's
potential legal impact.

It would be safer to move to an MIT license without attribution, but request
attribution as a courtesy.

~~~
dhimes
_It would be safer to move to an MIT license without attribution, but request
attribution as a courtesy._

Not just courtesy, but work to make it part of the culture. It should be. It
_is_ among professionally trained scientists and engineers, and this culture
should be propagated into the self-learning crowd.

IMO changing the license is the wrong way to go.

~~~
sambrand
Curious, what's the right way?

~~~
dhimes
Making attribution part of the culture, as I attempted to articulate. Kind of
like here on HN: When people quote, they give a reference.

------
santiagobasulto
Best comment I've read: "I'm going to just start putting an ingredient list on
my projects. _This software is made with 45% Stack Overflow recycled content_"

------
jrcii
All source code that's available to me falls under the "I'll do whatever I
want with it" License unless it's related to work for a high-profile client.
Most of the time these licensing debates and discussions are an abstract
philosophical matter in my life, not a practical one.

------
j_s
Funny to see the post at -100 points! One key portion of the discussion in
case anyone missed it:

 _What is reasonable attribution?_

 _A URL as a comment in your code is reasonable attribution._

~~~
dhimes
So link rot in my code is ok, but not on their site?

------
coldcode
And how do you define when it requires attribution and what % constitutes a
change and how do you calculate such a %? Also what if I the author put a
different license on my answer, which is it?

------
kochb
Quick back story, attribution required is new in this proposal, the previous
proposal did not require it leading to notable objections:
[http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/271080/180500](http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/271080/180500)

I'm very much in the "who cares, I put my code there to be used" camp, but
attribution is turning out to be surprisingly divisive.

------
placeybordeaux
I see this as reasonable and pragmatic, I have seen this type of attribution
happen organically hundreds of times.

However it is obviously bad for the copy-left movement.

~~~
dsr_
I've only been working with open source licenses since 1992, and it's not
obvious to me how required attribution is bad. Can you explain, please?

~~~
cwyers
GPL incompatibility.

~~~
jonathankoren
Huh? The GPL already requires an appropriate copyright notice.[1] This is not
the same as the BSD advertising clause [2]. I don't see how attribution is any
different.

[1] [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-
licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-
licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#IWantCredit) [2]
[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html)

------
LoSboccacc
wait

"Code contributed prior to March 1 will be governed by the CC BY-SA license
>>> as it has always been <<<." (emphasis mine)

sky isn't falling. attribution was always there, or so it seems according to
that part of the post (I'm like, in the overall 10%, and never noticed) .

if anything, requiring a link is a simplification over CC attribution style.

am I missing something?

~~~
sambrand
Nope.

------
stuaxo
Urg, I really want an antilicense, for SO or _any_ tutorial that is out there.

If I use things off SO I link back to them, out of courtesy to future
developers.

This is a problem that needs to be solved though, too many tutorials have code
under restrictive licenses, and it doesn't make sense to me.

~~~
dTal
What do you mean by an antilicense? If you don't want to impose any
restrictions on people, just put your code in the public domain. Here's some
boilerplate for that: [http://unlicense.org/](http://unlicense.org/)

But you can't expect everyone to do that. Considering people who exercise
their rights under copyright a "problem that needs to be solved" is generally
regarded as a... radical stance.

------
antaviana
I think it will be interesting for the SEO team at StackOverflow to see if
getting a bunch of links from Github, BitBucket, and other code hosting
services, impacts positively their SEO or not.

~~~
sambrand
I work at Stack Overflow. We don't have an SEO team. We don't care about this
at all.

------
scottdw2
This seems to be, quite obviously, an attempt at free marketing. They want to
be able to point at the corpus of products influenced by SO, and say "see,
we're pretty cool".

Seems misguided to me.

~~~
detaro
What does this require more than the previous rules that makes it an "attempt
at free marketing"?

------
mark_l_watson
I used a snippet of stackoverflow posted code in an example in my last book.
Adding a one line attribution comment with the stackoverflow user's name
seemed like such a natural thing to do that I did it almost on autopilot.

This is a good license change.

------
johnmaguire2013
Can anyone explain why CC recommends using other licenses for code? Why is a
license change necessary in the first place?

[1]
[https://creativecommons.org/software/](https://creativecommons.org/software/)

~~~
jordigh
Code is used in ways that other works are not. For example, code has source
code, or "preferred form for modification", as the GPL calls it. Code, sadly,
may run afoul of patents, whereas a novel or a painting probably does not.
Software licenses usually have clauses around these points.

Contrariwise, some licenses like the GPLv3 have intentionally broad language
to cover works other than code.

------
shmageggy
And just who will be enforcing this? Right, nobody. A bad law is worse than no
law.

~~~
mixedmath
This would be enforced exactly as all copyright is enforced --- through
lawsuit.

~~~
shmageggy
And who will be initiating and paying for these lawsuits?

~~~
cjensen
Copyright lawsuits can only be initiated by the copyright holder -- the person
who wrote the code being copied. StackOverflow does not claim copyright
ownership of a user's comments.

Which is exactly how Wikipedia and others work.

~~~
shmageggy
Which is my (implicit) point. The userbase of SO does not include entities who
have any incentive to litigate to protect their posted code.

~~~
gruez
New startup idea: acquire copyright to stack exchange solutions (there must be
at least some authors willing to sell out), sue companies, patent troll style.

------
746F7475
So, are people actually using code on SO as is? At least I only use it to
learn how to use something and then adapt it to my needs. Surely this is my
code and doesn't require any attribution or whatever?

------
jordigh
What's the actual license text? I couldn't find it. And is mandatory
attribution GPL-compatible? The 4-clause BSD license is not GPL-compatible
because of its advertising clause.

~~~
detaro
The box with the "new fine print" links to
[https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) And
yes, MIT is compatible to GPL.

------
ahmedfromtunis
People, are you telling me that you are copy/paste-ing snippets from SO to
your production codebases? Really?

------
such_a_casual
Licensing knowledge is insane. If copyright is ever crippled, we will see a
cultural renaissance.

------
ue_
It's unclear if I will be able to license the code I post in answers as I see
fit - or if SO is forcing me to use a certain license.

I don't want my code to be used in proprietary projects.

~~~
dtparr
I'll admit to always being a little confused about this point with reference
to StackOverflow. It's a question and answer site that generally involves
small, self-contained bits of code. How is answering the question not giving
an implicit license to use that answer? Are your answers really so substantive
that licensing it seems appropriate? Should I not accept your answer if my
question is about proprietary projects so that I can wait for someone with a
different license preference to come along and give me an answer I can use?

I suppose I've always looked at SO as devs helping devs, almost like a virtual
coworking space. If the guy next to me is having trouble, and I look over and
help him solve the issue, I'm not then going to go "oh, and btw, I'm going to
need some attribution, and you're only allowed to use my solution if your
project meets my criteria."

~~~
DanBC
> It's a question and answer site that generally involves small, self-
> contained bits of code.

What happens if I scrape SO so I can print and sell a book?

~~~
mikekchar
Collections are covered by copyright. So even though a recipe is not
copyright-able, a book containing recipes is. One of the reasons you will see
recipes filled with many paragraphs of filler is that it then becomes a
literary work which is covered by copyright.

Having said that, I would be surprised if the majority of code in SO is
generally copyright-able. If I ask a question, "How do I initialise an object
in C++" and the answer is a few lines of code, I do not think that this is a
copyright-able work. It is a technique. Even if the code is long enough to be
copyright-able, I don't think using the technique would be considered a
derived work.

Whatever the case, scraping portions of SO would be a copyright violation
since it is a collection.

~~~
LoSboccacc
you still can do that and attribute it somewhere. doubly so with this change,
since they require a link and it could be a qr code on the margin (not that
I'd buy that book, still..)

------
tptacek
Paging 'DannyBee.

------
yarrel
Or the 3-clause BSD license, as it used to be known and avoided.

Edit: OK, not quite. :-)

------
dschiptsov
Forced attribution as a new way of SEO?

------
sergiotapia
And the chickens come home to roost. This is their end-game. What a shame
they're going to piss it all away.

~~~
appleflaxen
Are you referring to something that happened in the past? What is the context
to your comment?

