37

Note Accumulating multiple discussions about why the 'own code only' restriction is in place on Code Review There are multiple reasons why Code Review has the restriction that the code has to be your own code. Moral / Polite The purpose of a code review is to provide constructive criticism. Criticism can only be constructive if given to the person who is ...


28

Proof by [extreme] example. (based on a true story) Not too long ago, someone posted one of their employees' code and asked for it to be reviewed by the community. The OP wrote that based on the feedback we would give him, that he would decide whether to keep or to fire that employee. Would you write the same review if you knew that what you write can result ...


22

Thank you for your transparency. If you had written the PR (or merged it), it would be on-topic. You already know you'll be rejecting the PR - putting it up for review here would boil down to picking on someone else's code, which is one of the reasons why reviewing other people's code is off-topic: we're not The Daily WTF! As for #4, that's indeed what we ...


20

Not a problem If it would be a problem, you wouldn't be allowed to use someone else's libraries either. That rule is there to prevent people from dumping code that they don't understand and/or 80% copied from the internet. We can't review that for a whole lot of reasons explained in other meta posts, enough of them already visible in the 'Related' section ...


17

I think the close vote is inappropriate. The close reason says "author or maintainer". In this case I think it makes sense to assume that the poster is the maintainer of the cloned code, especially if the code has diverged so much that the original is unrecognizable due to the changes. That close reason intends to filter out questions asking to review ...


16

What does it take to make code your own? Good faith. While I think the potential licensing issue reason makes sense, I also believe that the true reason behind this close reason is because of the spirit of Code Review, which is to post the code you've written and get it peer reviewed. Sure, one can game that rule, grab code online, twist it a little (or ...


14

In the past, I've leaned toward the first solution, for the reason that RubberDuck makes in his comment, however, having seen a few questions asked like this, now, I'm not so sure. Consider Exhibit A and Exhibit B. These are both swift questions that from some Stanford course intended to teach people swift. They're different questions from different users ...


13

To add to the discussion and to clarify my point... I'm not saying we should only eliminate this rule. It's highly likely that we need different, more specific rules in place of this rule. The problem with this rule is that there are questions that could easily be on-topic if it were for this rule alone. Yet this rule seems to exist to discourage certain ...


13

I now agree that the wording can be unhelpful or even incendiary (possibly construed as an accusation of plagiarism, even). I propose: Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Questions asking how or why code works are off-topic. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete example.


13

I think the poster's intention behind embedding the minified Respond.js library in the question was just to make the Stack Snippet work, and not to request a review of it. The minified code, arguably, doesn't really qualify as source code anyway. (The GPL, for example, defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" — ...


11

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 ...


10

This issue has been discussed a few times. Licensing is the one reason cited most often, and it's and easy one to use as a clear-cut thing. If you don't own the code you can't publish it and change the licensing on it. You are right though that there's a lot of code that may not be 'yours', and is still licensed to allow posting here, like other code on ...


8

All we know is that the OP bought a script: we know nothing of the license it came with (if any), and we don't know whether the terms of that license allow the OP to modify it, let alone putting the code up for review on a public forum, under a (likely) different license. You did well to ask: if it turns out the OP is not allowed to do this, then the post (...


7

I disagree that code should be self-written. There's something flawed about the notion that... But, the biggest reasons I (personally) think the own-code requirement is valuable is: Code is a personal thing, it's an expression of creativity, and the product of hard labour. People are emotionally 'invested' in their code. Code often requires ...


7

A secondary concern I had when closing the question was that it felt like you were using Code Review as your blogging platform. In particular, the repeated mentions of Hadoop and the use of the hadoop tag, despite the fact that the code ostensibly submitted for review had nothing to do with Hadoop, caused me to question your motives. What could have been ...


6

Here are my reasons why I think this wouldn't work as you suggest: Textbook examples Are we supposed to contact the book author and tell them about these reviews? We don't just review any code given to us. We help to improve your own code, not just any code you find somewhere. As for seeking understanding of code, you can post it on Stack Overflow. ...


6

I think the primary purpose of CR is to improve the quality of your code. And not just the code you post, but also your future code. And the way to do that is to post your code, so that we can point out the mistakes you're making.


6

As Mat's Mug has explained, the proposed question is not within the scope of Code Review. However, you say you already know what's wrong with the code. So why don't you fix it up first and ask for a review afterwards? You maintain the code, you turned something ugly into something shiny, we'll help make it even more shiny. Basically, it's perfectly fine ...


5

I disagree. The purpose of this close reason is to ensure that questions contain real code that belongs to the asker. The purpose of the "first" close reason is to ensure that the code works. The right place to put a note about 'understanding your own code' is in the first close reason, because, if you don't understand your own code, how can you tell if it ...


5

As an answer to the direct question: I see a motivation to the code ownership requirement in this policy in the linked FAQ but I would like to ask for a reassessment of this policy. Bottom line: No. The reasons are that: In a code review the person performing the review should be able to ask: Why did you choose to do X instead of Y? If the code is not ...


2

I'll try to answer your statement point for point. Improve this code, add N functions to do other things. Modify some fields and functions to do other things. Improved code is written code. Let's consider every part you improved to be yours. Improve this code, add N functions to do other things. Modify some fields and functions to do other things. ...


2

There isn't enough information to say. The requirement is that the poster needs to be the person who can license the code under the cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required license. Can this person do that? If not, the question should be closed. If so, then it shouldn't be (at least not for that reason). As written in the question, we don't have ...


1

Well, the script came with no exact license. In the "terms" file it only states: Licensing system rules: A license belongs to a domain / subdomain and not to a person Each license is valid only for a particular domain or subdomain. In case you sell a domain script is installed, the license is transferred to the new owner. In case you want to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible