
The MIT License – Clarity on Using Stack Overflow Code - mwsherman
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312598/the-mit-license-clarity-on-using-stack-overflow-code
======
unfunco
This to me (and excuse my ignorance) seems like a waste of time and money (on
real-life lawyers). Stack Overflow and the associated sites are public forums,
the users posting code surely realise they're posting information into the
public domain and as such it should be recognised as being in the public
domain.

Nobody (at least as far as I can tell.) is posting proprietary or self-written
code under the pretence that they will receive attribution under a nominated
license. It's a question and answer website, it's not a repository for
complete software or work that needs to be protected under license.

~~~
zck
>Stack Overflow and the associated sites are public forums, the users posting
code surely realise they're posting information into the public domain and as
such it should be recognised as being in the public domain.

Under current US law, just because something is publicly viewable doesn't mean
it's in the public domain.

