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