Hacker News Reader

Comment by vanattab | Hacker News Reader

I am under the understanding that if you don't want your code to be used in proprietary projects then you should not post it on SO. I could be wrong though. I also think you could get around this by link to your code hosted elsewhere but I believe this is frowned upon.

View on HN

I do not really mind if someone copies my code from SO and uses it in a proprietary project - though I certainly don't want to give that person a legal leg to stand on. I know it will happen inevitably, but saying "This code is licensed under the GNU GPL version 3 or later" will set alarms sounding in any developer paying attention.

I don't know if by submitting an answer (containing code) I am transferring the copyright to SO, or if I can stand in the way of this by saying "Copyright <my name>" in the answer.

You don't mind it but you want it to be completely illegal? Why?

I don't mind it in the sense that I know it will happen anyway. I object to my code being used in proprietary projects, though with small snippets it's not such a big problem for me.

But the problem is big enough for me to want to make sure the code is covered by a license I like. This is just how my priorities are to me.

Why would you answer a question if you then don't want the person to use the answer you give?

He's not saying that. He's saying that while he understands people will infringe his copyright, he still wants to help. He's not saying you can't use the answer, just that you need to use the answer under a license he chooses.

You are not transferring copyright (so you can still additionally distribute it under a different license), but you are licensing it to them under their terms (currently CC, potentially MIT).

A major premise of Stack Overflow was that it must be possible for the content to be migrated somewhere else if the company becomes malicious (to avoid being seen as another Experts Exchange). This requires consistent licensing which is compatible with this premise. Allowing users to enforce arbitrary licensing restrictions on their posts would undermine this.

>but you are licensing it to them under their terms (currently CC, potentially MIT).

I see, thanks.

I wish I was told about this issue (and the current potential license migration) by SO. Instead I had to come here to read about a change that will be applied, and due to my low number of points on the site, not have my voice heard.

SO might want to give the appearance of some friendly "democratic" place, but the "this thread has been closed for being off topic" and crap like this license debate has really turned me off.

If they cared about the users, "meta" would not be so hidden away as it is, and certainly not issues like this - yet apparently the choosing of a new moderator by vote (glorified ego contest) is enough to send me notifications about.

What a joke; I can't wait for a better site to come along.

The discussion linked here is linked to on every single question page, question list, and homepage of Stack Overflow. And the same for every other site on Stack Exchange.

I guess the hiding is the lack of a <blink> tag?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com