A New Code License: The MIT, This Time with Attribution Required

Re:A New Code License: The MIT, This Time with Attribution R... by michaeloder on Friday January 15, 2016 @07:06AM (#10908738)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A New Code License: The MIT, This Time with Attribution R... by dhimes on Friday January 15, 2016 @08:26AM (#10909122)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A New Code License: The MIT, This Time with Attribution R... by sambrand on Friday January 15, 2016 @11:04AM (#10910088)

Curious, what's the right way?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A New Code License: The MIT, This Time with Attribution R... by dhimes on Friday January 15, 2016 @11:18AM (#10910203)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]