There's an init script template I used once a while ago. I've been working on tweaking it to be more POSIX compatible and stylistically easier to follow, but I'm not the sole or primary author.


Would it be appropriate to ask for feedback about it here or would I be better off writing a new script from scratch and then asking for feedback on that?

  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ The only implication I'm seeing is that by posting on CR you effectively sublicense under CC-by-SA, and if you're not entitled to do that then your post may have to be taken down if the original author / owner doesn't agree with that. You might want to ask the original author for permission first. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 7, 2017 at 1:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you modified the code why would you admit the original version is not yours? There's no way anyone would recognize it and CR is for sure not checking the code in question agains GitHub. \$\endgroup\$
    – t3chb0t
    Commented May 27, 2017 at 17:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Because I'm going to follow the rules, whether they are easy to enforce or not. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 27, 2017 at 17:55

3 Answers 3


We don't allow users to post other peoples code for three main reasons: (Described here)

Moral / Polite

Would you take the criticism upon yourself, and not blame the original authors? It's plain rude to post something and shrug off criticism to another person. We are not Code Crap.

I can't answer this on your behalf, so if you think you'd do this, you should probably refrain from posting your question.


Can you tell us why you used A over B, if we were to question your code? And if we changed the code do you know the original code well enough that our changes would improve your abilities?

As you asked "would I be better off writing a new script from scratch and then asking for feedback on that", I would say you can cut the middle man here and just say yes to both of these.


The original code is MIT and so, IANAL, I think there is no concern here.

And so if you're ok with the moral/polite implications, then I'd say it's on-topic. But if not, write a new script and it'd definitely not be off-topic for this reason.

  1. You need honest feedback on your skill and capabilities.
  2. There may be legal implications.
  3. Personally i think you should want to grow as a developer, whilst there's nothing wrong with inspiration. Try to code whatever idea you come across yourself, read the docs and try to do it your way. Trust me its more satisfying even when you get bashed for your code as that's how you grow, and you can explain/defend your choice of logic.
    • Also you will easily understand advice.
    • Its also important to challenge advice until you are clear about the implementation, you cannot do all these things if there's parts of the code you don't fully understand yourself.
  4. So don't be intimidated and think that if you code it yourself, it won't be good enough.

Assuming that you have the right to publish both versions, then I think we can reasonably review something that's a modification of another work. However, the accompanying description needs much more work than usual. You need to be absolutely clear what you used as a starting point, and what part is your own work - this pretty much dictates that it will be a comparative review.

You would need to remind people that they are reviewing only your modifications, not the code as a whole. As we are notoriously bad at following instructions, you need to be really, really clear that the original is a given and not for review itself.

Overall, I think you should try to write your improvements in a stand-alone fashion (which might mean writing fragments rather than the entire program/script with an indication of how they fit in). Only if there's no way to do that, then consider asking for review of the changes to an existing program as a last resort - and even then, only if you are legally permitted to publish it here.


You must log in to answer this question.

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