You may have seen that Stack Exchange sites are to change from using CC BY-SA 3.0 for all parts of posts, to using CC BY-SA 3.0 for non-code parts of posts, and a modified MIT licence for code parts of posts (the modification being that attribution is not required except in certain circumstances, the meaning of which seems to be still under debate in the original post).

Since code on our site may tend to be longer than code on many other Stack Exchange sites, opinions on how important attribution is may differ. If you have general views on the licence change, please express them on Meta Stack Exchange in the original post. If you have points that specifically affect Computer Graphics.SE, you can make them here so that voting and comments will reflect the views of our specific community.

We have until the end of January 2016 to make any comments on the new licences before they are applied.


1 Answer 1


Good heads up. Though...

What good is commenting they aren't going to listen anyway. I'm fine with MIT, that's what i use for most stuff anyway. I just want the attribution part to be mandatory. Either its MIT or it is not.

I mean not necessarily fan of a full MIT text, seems to me its only there because otherwise legal experts are going to have a field day suing me for nonworking code. But rather, i want the legal bases done proper and i want the attribution. If nothing else I want the code base saying XX did this. Just like i would expect a reference in a publication if im cited (and cited is mandatory). Sure it will look bad in your production code but hey...

To be honest personally i would like it if legally saying: Done by XXX in YYY would do the same as MIT and be done with it. But law is whacked... I mean I've seen a car owner be deemed responsible for pushing 21 cars into a chain crash. Though a quick envelope calculation seems to indicate that there is no way this could be true because the energies involved would have had to be enormous and the damage would have been horrific in the last hit. But apparently physics is not a defense unless you bring your on physicist to testify.

  • $\begingroup$ I can't say for certain whether they will listen, but the fact that this was announced in advance on meta.SE, and the fact that they have extended the deadline to allow more discussion, both suggest that they are interested in feedback. $\endgroup$ Dec 29, 2015 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ The person who made the meta.SE announcement also posted this comment welcoming feedback both on meta.SE and on individual meta sites like ours. $\endgroup$ Dec 29, 2015 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ +1: I too am uncomfortable with using the name MIT but changing its terms. $\endgroup$ Dec 29, 2015 at 20:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .