Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsegratis | Hacker News Reader

C++ cannot be greater than C... Because the ++ is post-increment

He created a great language though

And agreed on the linking: every snippet on stackoverflow is effectively gpl

Requiring attribution/license change --- Unless you've already hyperlinked every author name, stackoverflow, + the page it came from, AND those links are not nofollow

https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/06/25/attribution-required/

""Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 4.0 with attribution required.""

EDIT: see cc by-sa text. It considers itself gpl equivalent

View on HN

Note that there is some discussion [1] surrounding this licensing, as the content was orinally under cc by-sa 3.0 and recently (begin September) relicensed to 4.0.

The concern is if Stack Exchange Inc has the right to unilaterally and retroactively relicense the content.

[1] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333615/will-concern...

IANAL but I put in my S.O. profile that all my contributions are public domain / CC0. I suppose that makes them dual licensed?

nope, because when you post content on SO, you are transferring ownership of that content to stack overflow. you don't own it anymore, so you can't license it.

> All materials displayed or performed on the public Network, including but not limited to text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, and animations (collectively “Network Content”) (other than Network Content posted by individual “Subscriber Content”) are the property of Stack Overflow and/or third parties and are protected by United States and international copyright laws (“Stack Overflow Content”).

https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service#licensing

of course, if your answer replicates content from another source that you link to in your answer, that other source still owns the content. so perhaps if you self-publish first and then replicate and link to your original source, you might be able to side-step this and license the original source as you like.

No, this is incorrect. Note "(other than Network Content posted by individual “Subscriber Content”)"; this refers to the stuff that users create and post. See the "Subscriber Content" heading below.

You license the content you create to them:

> any and all content [...] that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”) is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow

You still own the copyright to what you've written.

oh, that's great news! thank you for correcting me.

They might claim they own the content, doesn't mean they do.

> Everything on stackoverflow is gpl

> [...]

> ""Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 4.0 with attribution required.""

You literally said it isn't two sentences later!

cc by-sa 4.0 is copy left, compatible only with gpl and one other license

So your code must become gpl, or something equivalent

Sorry for not being clearer, you are right to question. May I make that prior post explicit?

Fair enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com