I understand that code found on Stack Exchange is under a Creative Commons License. This stipulates that
- any projects using the code must be shared with same (or compatible) license, and
- the author must be credited.
This doesn't work well in some situations, such as closed source projects or projects that fall under and incompatible license (like MIT or Apache). Also, just from a practical perspective, how can credit be given when most users don't use their real name?
Normally it's ok to get the idea behind an answer, and just take the gist of it without worrying about licensing or copyright. This works with sites like Stack Overflow. But Code Review is different. It's literally about the specific code, and any change would make a difference. For example, on SO someone could recommend using a function and this wouldn't be copyrightable. But on Code Review an answer would detail exactly how to call the function and what variable names work best etc. So copying and pasting seems inevitable if this site is to be used correctly.
Am I understanding things correct? What is the community's position on the matter? Here a prominent member of this community argued against the use of the MIT license, which I find strange.
For example if an answer is
line 5 should be replaced with
would someone be able to use it in a closed source project?