Slashdot Mirror
Use Code From Stack Overflow? You Must Provide Attribution (stackexchange.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Have you ever used Stack Overflow to answer a question about some code you're working on? Most people who write code on a regular basis have done so, and this sometimes involves copying code snippets. Well, starting on March 1, copying code from Stack Overflow will require you to attribute that code. Code published by contributors to SO will be covered by the MIT license. Users copying that code don't have to include the full license in their code, as it usually requires, but they do have to provide a URL as a comment in their code, or some similar level of attribution. This change applies to other sites in the Stack Exchange network, as well.
The SO community is widely criticizing the change, citing problems with the decision-making process that led to it and complications that may arise from mandating attribution. Why did SO make the change in the first place? They say "it's always been a little ambiguous how CC-BY-SA covers code. This has led to uncertainty among conscientious developers as they've struggled to understand what (if anything) the license requires of them when grabbing a few lines of code from a post on Stack Exchange. Uncertainty is a drag on productivity, for you and for us, and we feel obligated to make code use more clear."
The SO community is widely criticizing the change, citing problems with the decision-making process that led to it and complications that may arise from mandating attribution. Why did SO make the change in the first place? They say "it's always been a little ambiguous how CC-BY-SA covers code. This has led to uncertainty among conscientious developers as they've struggled to understand what (if anything) the license requires of them when grabbing a few lines of code from a post on Stack Exchange. Uncertainty is a drag on productivity, for you and for us, and we feel obligated to make code use more clear."
Fuck Stack Overflow.
If I offer you some code in an answer, that's for you. I'm not going to require you credit me or some site for the few fucking lines that would come through on stackoverflow.
So instead of dealing with that bullshit, I just won't use stackoverflow again.
Fuck them. Fuck their CoC. Fuck their SJW bullshit, too.
You're putting code online for free, you can't expect any real control over it.
This is way to complicated, and nonsense. How can you copyright solutions to problems that some may find themselves and others pick up from SO. This kind of appropriation of public resources is typical for the fossil fuel bank dominated economy that needs to get into every fucking nook and cranny to eek out some fossil fuel cashflow. I say : Fuck that.
You should be anyways, but not for the reasons that you might think.
I always include a link in comments to the source of the borrowed code (or approach), because the relevant discussion will illuminate the how and why far better than a large block comment.
I usually put the URL into a comment when I use a particular piece of code from Stack Overflow. More so for future reference than attribution.
It is anyway best practice to give your coworkers a clue where to find more information for that fix/workaround/implementation they stumble upon...
Nobody will come after you if you use code from Stackoverflow without attribution. The code isn't worth enough and the ownership is not obvious enough.
People and companies that have a policy of sticking to the spirit of a licence agreement as well as the letter will appreciate having some rules to know that what they're doing is acceptable.
If I post some code on SO without giving proper attribution, is the defact MIT license actually valid?
Here's an actual debate on this topic on SO:
http://meta.stackexchange.com/...
Accepted answer: Anything that you post to Stack Overflow will be under the terms of the Creative Commons license
Top comments seems to be about using "Unlicense" (instead of "Public Domain") and to just avoid cut-paste (good luck with that if you're dealing with an offshore team). I pretty much use #2, renaming everything and usually swapping some of the decision logic to create something that looks original enough to pass a smell test when I cut/paste. It's work, but it's still significantly less work than writing it from scratch.
I don't think you can retroactively take something out of the creative commons just by posting a new notice. This may apply to future content, but the code snippets submitted under CC-by-SA should still be CC-by-SA, although IANAL.
Regardless, I always do this exact thing anyway. I copy & paste snippets of code from Stackoverflow(and elsewhere) all the time. Putting the URL to the origin is just common sense because if that code ever needs to be used in other situations: traceability of copyright is ridiculously important to avoid accusations of plagiarism. It's a habit I picked up while writing research papers in school.
And nothing of value is lost.
SO as it is now, is mostly a forum for H-1B wannabies asking dumb questions that are answered by dickheads who has too much time on their times.
Are we going to be running plagiarism checks? Are we going to have an open-source version of the BSA, scaring people into attributing some random internet person for a few lines of code?
This is about money and maybe ego. A combination of what some shortsighted idiot thinks of as free advertising and maybe some ego-hungry folk involved in the decision-making who feel the need to be cited.
And it will start moving every major company away from stackoverflow. You can't be putting snippets of other people's code in your product with attribution because you're going to be making lawsuits and licensing that much more complicated. People who worry about those things will use stackoverflow less and less.
Stackoverflow has a great network effect from all the users. But stuff like this will make anyone who brings another game to town look a lot more attractive.
The same code snippet gets recycled, munged, riffed on, ported to new languages, rewritten by multiple authors, commented on and then improved, reposted by new authors with bug fixes, and on... The whole value of sites like SO is this kind of sharing. But doesn't that mean attribution, especially for smaller snippets, will become a nightmare?
For me it always came down to what kind of code it was. If it was "I know what I want to do, what's the right/best way to express that in $LANGUAGE / using $FRAMEWORK?", we're talking about just mechanics. If I was looking for how to do something, where I needed the actual algorithm or data structure rather than just "What's the syntax?" or "Which operator's best?", that's getting into the creative side where you need to at a minimum do attribution. Almost all of what I get off of SO falls into the first category.
It would be nice and all. But, if I don't feel like it, there's fuck all Stack Overflow or anyone else can do about it. Therefore, any further discussion is completely pointless.
Next story please.
This sentence is copyrighted by me.
> They say "it's always been a little ambiguous how CC-BY-SA covers code. This has led to uncertainty among conscientious developers as they've struggled to understand what (if anything) the license requires of them when grabbing a few lines of code from a post on Stack Exchange
This kind of overzealous corporate submissive pussy is exactly what needs to be rooted out from all kinds of communities online. Stack overflow and sister sites are absolutely full of these idiots.
...that if they require this, it is edging towards some kind of implicit acceptance of responsibility for that code.
If I use code from a forum, offered freely, and burn down my stuff, it's on me.
If I use code from a paid source and it burns down my stuff, it's on them.
If I use code from a forum, but I have to attribute that code in mine, then ???
I would dismiss that conclusion right off the bat. But you give some lawyers even the slightest rationale, it's off to the courts you go.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
artists paintings must provide attribution to the original artist.
Perhaps it's because I'm an academic and my use of Stack Exchange relates to my research projects, but I'm having a hard time understanding why people would object to citing the source of a snippet of code. I have always cited and linked to the profiles people who were kind enough to help me with my code on Stack Exchange, not out of license obligation, but out of professional respect.
In academia, citing the work of others is commonplace. It's super easy to insert a comment in your code with a link. Putting the licensing and legal interpretations aside for a moment, why wouldn't you just want to do this out of respect for another professional?
Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond to this. Let's see. I'm going to go with "bite me".
just to help my OMFG, panic search the web to get this addled hack of a script out by deadline.
Perhaps it's because I'm an academic and my use of Stack Exchange relates to my research projects, but I'm having a hard time understanding why people would object to citing the source of a snippet of code. I have always cited and linked to the profiles people who were kind enough to help me with my code on Stack Exchange, not out of license obligation, but out of professional respect.
In academia, citing the work of others is commonplace. It's super easy to insert a comment in your code with a link. Putting the licensing and legal interpretations aside for a moment, why wouldn't you just want to do this out of respect for another professional?
Reply to This Share Flag as Inappropriate
many of the code solutions are already plagiarized from books and blogs... SO needs to handle proper citation before it could enforce such a policy.
Unless and until the author of any code snippet transfers their copyrights to the website, the owner can do with their code as they please. They can release it under any license they want, or dedicate it to the public behind Stackoverflow as they please.
If someone posts some code answering a question, arguably they've granted an implied license to use and copy that code for every person that reads that answer. Anyone can get to the answer without restriction, so it cannot be said the reader has consented to anything. The website owner/manager has the same kind of implied license to publish a code or an answer -- they have absolutely no rights to restrict further copying, use or distribution.
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
As a good habit, I try to always include a link to the stack overflow code. Granted, I rarely copy and tweak anything, but when I do I make sure to provide a link. I don't do it for attribution; I provide a link so that I can get back to my original thought process. Also, sometimes people update, comment or provide other solutions to scenarios that might be meaningful.
Coding with the mindset of "for the next guy/girl" suggests to add a URL in your comments.
In my free software project as much as in my job I did not waited for SO to tell me about the moral right
and putting a link to the point.
0) short enough IP quotes falls under the international conventional (Bern or Geneva pick wisely) and short citations are commonly accepted (like sampling in music) without reference to the author. And IP only protects originality. The only persons who think that IP are not strict enough are Creative Commons and some freetarded artists thinking that Sampling should be forbidden. I hate CC, I hate freetarded, so I would usually go against their will.
1) HOWEVER, I consider myself quite a seasoned developer if I need stack overflow it means I had some difficulties so I often put a link because with attribution
BECAUSE a link to the context worth 1thousands lines of comments and it helps to prevent saying : X hours lost here please update the counter after meaningless optimization
2) I am french but not daft punk or air or any french touch coder: I like to "give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar". I am a traditionalist that care about moral rights and ethic.
I expect myself to do what I expect others to do with my code.
In fact for my code, I am sometimes in WTFPL. But I don't mind people not being like me and overpermissive.
The only stuff I hate is DON'T attribute to yourself the paternity of someone's else work. You can use my work, but if so, don't say it is yours...
Like one of my job trying to patent my free software made on my spare time.
99.999999% of the code posted to StackOverflow didn't originate with the person who's posting it.
Most of it is just someone spitting out what they learned from someone else, and in most of the situations, the most upvoted answer is the common sense and only real solution to the problem presented, thats why it gets voted to the highest/accepted as the answer.
SO doesn't really have the right to force a license on the code posted there, they are pretending to worry about people using the code, but ignoring the broken part of the people posting the code.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
They just want the link to drive more traffic to their site.
So it should all be legally ambiguous instead?
I think we all know how problematic that is. It's not 1992 anymore.
Who owns the code posted to Stack Overflow?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
When I post code on Stack Overflow, I intend for other people to use it. I couldn't care less if I have attribution, I'm just trying to be helpful. I suspect that this is intended to get more traffic to Stack Overflow.
This doesn't sound onerous to me at all. It doesn't require anything in public documentation, help pages, or otherwise like the MIT license. It simply requires a single URL in a code comment.
This sounds perfectly fine to me--in general, I and my team already does this because it's helpful to know WHY we chose a course of action, especially when it was complicated enough to require SO's help.
http://meta.stackexchange.com/...
What is reasonable attribution?
A URL as a comment in your code is reasonable attribution.
There are certainly other forms of reasonable attribution, depending on use, and you are welcome to go above and beyond what’s required and include username, date, and anything else if you like.
You are also welcome to use the MIT License as it is traditionally interpreted: by preserving the full license with relevant fields (copyright year and copyright holder) completed.
-=Lothsahn=-
In many cases, there is only one correct way to do a thing. This is similar to Google's argument regarding Java APIs: if you want to write compatible code, there is only a single way it can be done. It isn't creativity, it's plain mathematical necessity. Many of the people didn't write the language interpreter they are providing an answer about, so they have no rights to claim in answering trivial syntax questions (no more than a person can claim Rights to a section of Harry Potter because they discussed it on a forum). If the answer involved writing a complex algorithm, then yes, an argument can be made for attribution. I think common sense is sufficient to tell the difference.
Of all of the problems plaguing SO, this attribution crap is the least important of them.
The awful moderation is by far the biggest problem. It's so frustrating to ask a perfectly good question, get some good answers to it, and then later on some micropenised moderator comes along and starts muddling with the questions and answers just to make himself feel like his micropenis isn't as small as it is.
Moderation online just makes things worse. Doesn't matter if it's SO or Slashdot or Wikipedia. Most of the time it's just an outlet for people with microscopically small genitalia to try to feel bigger and more important than they really are. In reality, they're just freaks with shrunken genitalia who have no value at all.
Summary says " Well, starting on March 1, copying code from Stack Overflow will require you to attribute that code"
Actually, copying code from Stack Overflow ALREADY requires you to attribute it. The posters own the copyright, you can't copy without permission, and the only permission that applies to ALL Stack Overflow content is CC BY-SA.
Now, individual posters may give permission to copy without attribution. But the default rule has been CC BY-SA since the site opened, and the BY in CC BY-SA stands for "byline". Read the license for the full details, but attribution is very much required under the status quo.
Question: How do you print something in C? // This code is released under the MIT license and the Public Domain. You may choose to use either license.
Answer:
puts( "Hello, world!" );
Is the community going to fork off if the problem isn't resolved?
Before you freak out, you should read the license that's been in place on Stack Overflow since it was founded.
Guess what: it requires attribution.
It's not totally clear how that's supposed to work when applied to code, but it's crystal clear about the requirement itself. The proposed MIT change is aimed at making this more obvious, but... If you aren't already giving credit where it's due, then that's on you - the license has always demanded that.
You might wanna read up on the "share alike" bit too...
P.S. I work for Stack Overflow.
I want all my relevant online contributions to be considered public domain. Ironically, the sites where I write (StackOverflow or Slashdot) can apply their more-restricted-copyright policies (a different story is people respecting such decisions).
Note that I have updated my SO profile description to include all these ideas: http://stackoverflow.com/users...
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
I can't believe all of the hate for this. It's not a big deal and it's something I've always been doing anyway.
If I gleam a good idea from SO, I put a link to the question in a comment in the source. This way I have a
research point if I have to make an additional change or it doesn't do exactly what I expected.
This doesn't sound onerous to me at all. I suspect people who are objecting are the ones who really don't
understand the solution they have pasted, and are too embarrassed to admit their stupidity and ignorance,
maybe hiding that fact from their peers and manager.
CAP === ''
BTW, when did /. start using Japanese CAPTCHAs?
It's about SO trying to more eyes on the site and raise their ad revenue further.
"Hmm, where did the dev get this code? Oh, I see, from SO. Let me go to the link and see what else was said..."
Anyone who buys that "we're only thinking of the code submitters' rights" crap is just fooling themselves.
When I post a few lines of code to SO, or anywhere else, in response to some question or other I don't expect any attribution.
Mostly these things are very short and could be gleaned from the documentation of whatever system anyway.
If I did want attribution it had better point to me not the medium I used to publish it.
Yes I know, in the academic world of paper writing citing your sources is de rigueur. But really this is not original research we are talking about. Mostly it's just people having problems with technical details.
Is SO trying to commit suicide?
I've never considered myself a programmer but I code. I've always looked for guidance on how to behave in the community. Without weighing in on the ethics and/or practicalities of SO insisting we do this, it seems to me a trivial/polite/useful thing to do. I, for one, will start doing this.
I put the 'Physics' in 'Physical Attraction'
@attributions
- The C Programming Language 2nd Edition
by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie
for help on the printf statement.
- Linux man-pages project for parameters to the
strftime function.
- Professor Steve Sherman for the first class using C.
- Professor John Wirth for general programming
skills being taught.
- Bill Joy for developing the vi editor in which this
code was produced.
*/
When I write up a code snippet to answer a question on a website, I get to decide how I want to license that. Not the website... And almost this exact argument has gone to court, BTW - Adobe can't claim any rights whatsoever to Photoshops just because their creators used an Adobe product to make them. Call me crazy, but somehow I doubt the courts would consider the use of a text input box to write a forum post as granting more rights to the tool-maker than they do with Photoshop.
And when I write up a code snippet to answer a question on Stack Overflow, I consider it completely public domain. I give up any and all rights to that code. Go grab it and "Hello World" your little heart out without giving me a lick of credit.
Now - Whether or not that now violates SO's ToS, yes, SO can decide that it does and ban me from contributing. But they don't get to tell me how I copyright my own created works (aka "posts").
Not a change from SOP for me. I do it; no matter where I get the code.
If I use the code to provide a pattern, and deviate significantly from it, I may not have much/any of the original code, but I generally attribute it anyway, as it helps to clarify the "why."
In my opinion, "why" is the most important focus of code comments. Adding a URI to an extended discussion is a way to save a whole lot of typing.
And professionalism. Then again, most programmers aren't professionals so the whining is not unexpected.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
It totally baffles me how many seem to freak out as others have pointed out, the license of Stack Overflow contributions is CC-BY-SA by default, which is a ton more restrictive. My first thought reading the headline was "Finally!"
At worst interpretation, I think, CC-BY-SA is the GPL-of-the-CC-licenses, add one line of SO CC-BY-SA code to your commercial product and you're now obliged to give out everything under CC-BY-SA or be in breach of license
(Hint: NEVER use share-alike licenses unless you explicitly want to f* someone)
MIT is so much more suited, and more liberal, for small code snippets
Plus, in any case, SO owes its very existence to poor technical documentation.
swapping some of the decision logic to create something that looks original enough to pass a smell test when I cut/paste.
I'd have second thoughts about employing a programmer who passes off other people's work as his own.
Surely enough i already did that (linking to my source of information in my comments), if a bit of code originated from some online reference documentation.
However, if i'm obliged to, i won't. Not because i don't want to, but because i don’t want my ass get stung by possible legal issues, now or later.
So, as a consequence, developers will do exactly the opposite: avoid linking to them, as it's a legal wasp-nest. Instead they will just alter code to obfuscate the copying, or avoid using code from such site altogether.
From their point of view i can understand too, but their point isn't mine. Eventually i am the one responsible for the code i produce. Not matters if this is some employer, or, say, some gpl'd code. I don't think they did realize the consequences this potentially has for devvers all around the globe. And that their examples are best seen as public documentation, which should be 'public domain'. Else their's no point in posting and having google index all those questions and answers in the first place.
When I copy code from StackOverflow, if it's more than one or two lines, I include a reference to the source page. If only so the programmers who work on my code after me know where it comes from and why it is the way it is.
no, I don't have a sig
A snippet is not a big enough fragment. Also who takes code 1:1?
for copyright. Therefore the license and their requirements aren't relevant.
SO has just announced it is suspended.
So,
you "copy/paste" code from the internet and never did attribute/mention the original author?
And now a web site makes it a requirement in the "terms of usage" that you do so?
And: you never figured before hand that this is
a) the polite thing to do
b) the fucking law
c) in every damn book where people "quote" something "under fair" use for "science" or "educational purpose" the author is mentioned (otherwise it would be no fair use anymore), but if you copy/paste from SO or similar you don't think it would be appropriated?
No, I did not lose a closing bold tack somewhere.
How can it be so hard to be a "so called artist" and to grasp that sources should be mentioned?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I just lost considerable respect for the sad bastards behind this decision. Maybe they'll see the light...
I don't know how many times I've seen piss poor code upvoted as the correct answer. Sure, most of the time it works but will have obvious errors, poor coding, men leaks, etc. In almost all cases I end up rewriting the code anyway.
I think Stack Overflow currently has a lot of issues such as: .Net questions). Making it confusing if you ask questions/answers questions with different tags.
- Tutorials / API / ressources question are off-topic since 2012 which goes against the "Don't reinvent the wheel" programming pattern.
- A lack of consistency of moderation standards accross several tags (ie: what's not permissible in C/C++ questions isn't applied for
- The lack of code features to support the moderation standards (ie: the site shouldn't let you accept an answer 10 minutes after you posted the question if the standard is 24h. The code shouldn't let new users edit their questions because they tend to ask 30 follow-up questions.
Is it time for a new site with the pros of SO but without its problems?
"Installing this extension in your Chrome browser (or perhaps a lazy co-worker's...) will prevent you from selecting (and therefore also copy+pasting) any text from stackoverflow.com."
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/anti-copy-pasta/bpmjllnllinemdobdpbphdnoaanjpkkb?hl=en
Its bypassable, but requires someone to care enough to bypass.
SO is implicitly claiming rights in the code posted by its users. I'd check their terms of use.
Authors of the code snippets who understand that (regardless of ideology) this is not practical for most people who code for a living... can just re-post a link to their code as a gist, pastebin etc with an MIT / BSD / WTFPL license.
For those wondering about derivative license compatibility issues: remember that as the sole author you have the right to use as many licenses as you like unless exclusivity is part of your job/contract. I don't think Stack Overflow can force this requirement on a user without breaking their rights in most countries.
... if I pull code or a solution from an Internet source, I always include the attribution. I don't do it for the author's benefit. I do it because it can be helpful to someone else reading my code in the future.
Evolution: love it or leave it
I figure if I had to go to Stack Overflow for something, it's likely something that some future reader (or myself) may want more context/explanation on, and the Stack Overflow discussion generally contains a lot more than whatever snippet I happened to take. So I tend to include the URL in a comment.
algorithims cannot be copyrighted
I am such a lazy and inadequate programmer, I get all my code snippets from StackOverflow. I can't write anything worth a damn.
I generally cite where it came from anyways, including SO. It is just common professional courtesy. And, it is useful later on if someone goes back to the article and finds it updated or rebuked.
Poor coders plagiarize
Good coders cite
Great coders steal
Stack overflow ceased to be relevant to professional developers long ago, around the same time it became full of students asking others to do their home work.
This compounded by the problem, where those inexperienced student types up vote answers provided by the 'personalities' and 'celebrity coders' whether talking sense or not.
JustAnotherOldGuy posting from work....
1) Prove that my code snippet came from Stack Overflow instead of someplace else. Go ahead, prove it.
2) Prove that my code snippet actually originated on Stack Overflow instead of someplace else.
3) Prove that I didn't write the original code snippet, which was then copied to Stack Overflow by someone else.
4) Prove that my one-liner in perl, php, java, C++, C#, javascript (or any other language) has never been written before by any other person in the history of the world.
5) Prove that Stack Overflow hasn't instituted a policy that is basically IMPOSSIBLE to enforce in any meaningful way.
5) Prove that Stack Overflow isn't being run by a bunch of self-important jackoffs.
Algorithims are algorithms And are not protected by copyright nor patent you idiot.
Given their existing policies to encourage posters to copy solutions from external sources rather than linking to them, I don't think 'professional respect' is the motivation for SO.
It is about in bound links, eye balls and advertising profits.
I've updated my profile on SO with:
Every post I make to Stack Overflow is explicitly released to the Public Domain and may be used without restriction. The license of the author in every case supersedes any blanket license of a service provider.
Dis is gunna b gud.
I'm not a programmer but I've gotten way in over my head on this one program I'm developing (music generating software). I'm constantly using code from all over the place and I attribute it and provide license information for all of it. I don't know what's considered trivial or what any other relevant laws are so I make sure I am always covered. And if I can't find licensing information about some code then I search elsewhere for a solution. Since this one big project is my entire life I want to make sure every single little i is dotted and t crossed. If this makes it easier for me to use code from SE then great with a clear conscience then great!
Well thanks for the notification. I'm now somewhat attentive to this. As for me, for all of the code I've submitted, I've never expected to attributed, and I'm not sure how this is even useful let alone enforceable. I'd say from the perspective of both a user and contributor to SO, that while though it's nice to have what you write noted elsewhere, the advantage of unencumbered ideas as provided by SO (and thus google) overwhelms any sort of benefit to strict conformance to some license. I'd like to think whatever gets proposed now can be undone once more of us become aware of this issue.
Good luck enforcing this, LOL
Copy/Paste is rampant, and I expect will continue, and damn well SHOULD continue. Efforts involved in re-inventing the wheel are wasted time. If I see a good library, or even piece of code, I'm going to copy it, without attribution, and NO ONE is going to stop me, and that's true EVEN if the product the code gets into is a commercial for-profit product.
So na-na-na-na-na
The only reason for this attribution requirement is so that Stack Overflow can have millions of back-links to its pages. Just consider what portion of that code may end up on GitHub or other open repositories....
I just felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of indian programmers and milennials suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly butthurt.
Update: January 15, 2016 Thank you for your candidness, patience and feedback. We're going to delay the implementation for now - we'll be back soon to open some more discussions.
So it's not been taken off the table, but it probably won't happen anytime soon.
You can only legally copyright code that is 25 pages or longer anyways. Most of the paragraph sized snippets from StackOverflow don't qualify anyways. Carry on.
I have ALWAYS put urls in my code that points to things. Even if I didn't copy and paste the code, but if I learned something that was super important, or how something is super stupid, or why something is super bad. Dump the URL in there to instantly resolve myself of all blame. "Learned it here, suck it."
Thank you for this ludicrous strawman. Thank you for an imbecilic argument. You have done more damage to your cause by being yourself than anyone else could possibly have done by reasoned argument.
Children can tell the difference between hate and respect, between tolerance and bigotry. And it is the children and young people of today who will choose what the future world will look like. Thanks to you, they will choose correctly.
I used to post all the time.
Then the SO devs, who by the looks of it had too much free time, added more and more "features", each of which was unnecessary and annoying and often patronizing.
The site in the end (and this was years ago) because *so* irritating to use.
Then a mod did something - I remember not what now - to a post of mine, and I discovered there's nothing you can do. Community moderated means small-group-of-dictators moderated. You're fine, so long as you don't run into one of them.
So I quit.
As an aside, the reputation system on SO is absolutely and totally broken, and obviously so. It's been like that for years. Never been fixed, never will be.
The problem is this : if I answer a complex question on a difficult and esoteric subject which takes years to learn, I might get one or two upvotes.
If I tell a newbie how to print to stderr in python, I'll get fifty upvotes.
Who in their right mind would copy code from SO and not add a comment where it came from. That you had to go to SO to find a solution means you were uncertain and then copied something which kinda looked right. Do yourself and whoever comes after you a favor and comment code you pick up off the street. This is true for all code -- if a vendor gives you a code example, document it. If another team give you code demonstrating how to use their package, document it. You do no one a favor pretending you came up with that crazy piece of code on your own. What are you going to do when someone comes to you ('cause blame don't lie) asking how it works or if it works in a slightly different context, what are you going to say?
mylist = [1,2,3]
for item in mylist:
print item
#http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4170656/for-loop-in-python
#attributable to bukzor, but thankfully it's CC, I'm glad he did it for us
We all put in answers where we can freely with no such restrictions and this is a ridiculous idea that none of us will abide by.
Example code, code snippets etc. -- basically all code on SO -- effectively constitutes a recipe. Recipes have been ruled non-copyrightable. Therefore code on SO is not copyrightable, and in the public domain.
Look at all the copycats/fake-it-till-you-make-its around here freaking out now that their 'coding skills' gained by stealing others' work are totally flipping out about this! No more stealing others' work and calling it "your own" for your kind boys. To quote Christian Bale from the film "The Prestige" at its termination "It takes nothing to steal another man's work" and I'll add to that amending it for this case "but it will be hard to continue your facade minus doing so" won't it? Yes.
In the past whenever I have found it to be helpful, I don't copy paste but use their example to get the gist of how it is done. After all, the examples almost never do exactly what you want, how you want it done.
I almost never use "found" code verbatim. Usually I have to rewrite it to fit into my project, not to mention remove the assumptions the original author baked into it in the first place. At that point I've changed it so much it becomes a derivative work. But, I *always* provide attribution in my source code by linking to the URL where I found the code snippet. Not to give the author their moment of fame, but so next time anybody looks through my code they know where I got that weird function and can visit the site to see the discussion. So at the end of the day, what I'm doing is called documentation, and anybody who *doesn't* do that should be smacked for being an idiot, not for breaking SO's silly rule.
The problem is that SO doesn't own all (any>?) of the code on their site, a lot of which is very basic textbook "hello world" type of things, and it's asinine for them to think they can slap some sort of license on it.
It has nothing to do with what is good or bad code documentation, except in that it possibly tries to steamroll that debate with some sort of "my uncle is a lawyer and works for nintendo and do it my way or else..." argument that makes absolutely no legal sense.
I've always done that - if I copy any code from somewhere else, I add a comment saying where I got it from. Not because I feel like I need to legally, more because it's *helpful* - it's helpful if you come back a year later, and you're like, I don't remember writing this code? Oh, right, I didn't, I got it from somewhere else. It's also extra-helpful if the reason for the revisit later is because you think there might be a bug - first thing to do is go check the original source, see if the bug was already fixed. And of course, it is also polite to give proper credit, even if nobody is going to see the source other than your coworkers.