2
\$\begingroup\$

This question already has an answer here:

The Help Center says:

For licensing, moral, and procedural reasons, we cannot review code written by other programmers.

Can somebody explain what is immoral about reviewing someone else's code?

If Person A posts their code, we're allowed to review that, but if Person B posts Person A's code, we can't? The goal in reviewing after all isn't to shame another person for writing subpar code, but to recommend ways of improving their code.

Now because of the licensing and procedural (not sure what that means exactly) reasons, I'm not suggesting that we allow posting other people's code, but just that we remove the word "moral" from the list of reasons.

\$\endgroup\$

marked as duplicate by Nic Hartley, Community♦ Dec 6 '18 at 23:00

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Part of that seems already answered here \$\endgroup\$ – Mathias Ettinger Dec 5 '18 at 17:31
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ "moral" should perhaps be replaced with "ethical"? \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl♦ Dec 5 '18 at 17:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rolfl That would be an improvement \$\endgroup\$ – pushkin Dec 5 '18 at 17:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Like anyone cares here for any of those. These are just nice excuses for We cannot review code written by other programmers because it's highly likely that you don't understand the code yourself and you don't know what it does and why it does that. \$\endgroup\$ – t3chb0t Dec 6 '18 at 16:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @t3chb0t, or those who want to review don't want to get hit by a terraton truck called "lawsuit". I don't have enough money for an attorney, and even if I would have enough, I would rather let the opportunity to attend court pass. \$\endgroup\$ – Incomputable Dec 6 '18 at 19:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ This wording looks like has been adapted from the close reasons faq. Which links to an answer that better describes the reasons. \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Dec 6 '18 at 20:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Incomputable why would someone who writes a review should be liable for something this isn't in his control? If an asker posts code that he shouldn't have, there is no way for anybody to know that. It's his problem not mine. He'll be in trouble not reviewers. \$\endgroup\$ – t3chb0t Dec 7 '18 at 6:46
11
\$\begingroup\$

Two words: Intellectual Property.

If it's not your property it is unethical to submit it for review. Hence the exception for maintainers.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This isn't the original reason why the word moral was used. \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Dec 6 '18 at 20:48
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Peilonrayz you should explain that in an answer. I'd upvote it. \$\endgroup\$ – bruglesco Dec 6 '18 at 22:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't really have the time to write an answer :( \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Dec 6 '18 at 23:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hehe, so true. It's so simple yet they ask... \$\endgroup\$ – FreezePhoenix Dec 7 '18 at 15:17

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