7
\$\begingroup\$

I am not a lawyer.

I am reviewing a suggested edit where a user created a jsFiddle from the code in someone elses question. I believe this breaches the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license that the code in the question was under.

The license information from the jsFiddle page says:

All code belongs to the poster and no license is enforced.

We are not responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any kind during the usage of provided code.

It seems that only the original poster would have the right to create the pastebin.

  1. Is there a breach of license?
  2. Should I improve the edit by removing the link to the jsFiddle that breaches the license?
  3. Are any further actions required?
\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

Disclaimer: Also not a lawyer, nor can I even edit on CodeReview -- Just offering my opinion

Is there a breach of license?

Yes, unless permission was granted, or the paste follows the CC-BY-SA 3.0, that is the case. The paste is in violation of both the license and the owner's copyright.

Also, if you very strictly interpret the jsfiddle license, then only the original author should be posting on there, though I don't think their license needs to be interpreted that way. I think what they really meant was "Ownership of code is not altered by being posted here."

It's not like jsfiddle could actually change the ownership of something like that. That would be like I got my friend to sign a contract then claimed that the friend now owns a second friend's car because that's what my contract said.

Should I improve the edit by removing the link to the jsFiddle that breaches the license?

I would decline the edit and let the user decide where to proceed from there. The edit contains something that definitely violates the license of content on the site, so it definitely seems that it should be declined. The user could easily fix it with a simple "<link> is where this is from (by <Author>)" comment at the top of the jsfiddle.

The jsfiddle might also not even be necessary. It seems that it's very rarely used on CR, and I believe that's with good reason. People have come to expect to scroll through massive pages, and a live example is rarely necessary. There are definitely advantages of jsfiddle, but the potential link rot should always be considered.

If the jsfiddle does stay in place, I believe two things need to happen:

  • The post should be edited so that the SE source of the post is cited (a link to the question the code was lifted from)
  • A new fiddle should be created that contains proper attribution
\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

I'd say what you quote from the jsFiddle website is more that jsFiddle does not claim anything about that code.

You have not posted a link to the code and questions in question, so it's hard to say if not attribution requirements are met just inside the source form or in the context of the work (e.g. there where it is linked).

Next to that please keep in mind that the CC licenses do not fit well for software. So I suggest to not take it too seriously.

Is there a breach of license?

Probably.

Should I improve the edit by removing the link to the jsFiddle that breaches the license?

You could make the source of the code visible on jsFiddle, save a new revision and update the link. However, "seriously", if the copy is already tainted, you should not edit it, because you won't have the right to do that ;)

Are any further actions required?

Not any further nor any concrete. Actually no action is required. Copyright owner could action something here, but if I read your question right, you're not the author.

So it's nice you ask, but you should not feel required to anything here IMHO. You can talk with the one who placed the link and discuss personally if you feel it's necessary, but apart from talking and exchanging opinions, what should be required?

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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