Timeline for What license for code resembles CC BY-SA most?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 1:07 | answer | added | congusbongus | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 18:18 | comment | added | vonbrand | @ThomasOwens, we should align the rules with what most people did understand. | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 18:10 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @vonbrand That is not correct. What you're saying is that we should change the rules because people don't understand or obey the rules. | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 18:08 | comment | added | vonbrand | @TomasOwens, the license has to follow the real usage pattern, not some starry-eyed idea of how the world should work. Besides, this is off-topic here, the question is about a code license similar to CC-BY-SA, not what SE is all about. | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 18:07 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @vonbrand Why does that matter? It's not my problem if someone fails to read or reads, doesn't understand, and doesn't ask questions about the terms of use that they are agreeing to. Refusing to acknowledge and understand the rules is not an excuse for not following them. | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 18:05 | comment | added | vonbrand | @ThomasOwens, have you got firm percentages of people who read the "terms of use" at least? How many of them did understand them? | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | @vonbrand Any license would be "free-for-all", in the sense that it's available to anyone that can access it. I'm just asking because a lot of people have said that contributions should be licensed under the GPL, because it's closest to the licensed used now. I disagree that the CC license is closed to that, which is the motivation for this question. | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 13:48 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | @vonbrand What do you mean by that? On Stack Exchange, there was no "informal understanding". Anyone who read the license and terms of service should have clearly understood that all content, including code, is CC BY-SA 3.0. However, the problem is that CC BY-SA 3.0 (and all CC licenses) are not well-defined for software - they don't address source code, binary files, linking, etc. If you have non-code content under one of the CC licenses, it does make sense to look at closely related licenses specifically for software that address the concerns that CC doesn't. | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 13:03 | comment | added | vonbrand | The "status quo" is that there was no clarity whatsoever on code, just the completely informal understanding that the code was in some sense "free for all". It was published by most with that understanding, and probably used mostly as if it were. | |
| Jan 18, 2016 at 11:05 | answer | added | Thomas Owens | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 22:00 | history | edited | vonbrand | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original title doesn't parse; it is about code licenses anyway |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 20:51 | history | asked | Zizouz212 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |