48

No. We require the code to be contained within the question, for the following reasons: To avoid dependency on third-party hosting services. These links tend to go away after a while. To prevent review requests of huge projects. To make it easier to see the code and so it can interest more reviewers and get more reviews. To avoid confusion when the OP ...


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 ...


27

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 ...


26

No. Because there's a reason we require your code to be embedded in the question:


16

We require that the asker posts code that they have written themselves. In that case it can be assumed that the asker owns the copyright for that code and can license that code to Code Review under CC-BY-SA. For this it is irrelevant whether that code was already published elsewhere under a different license; one creative work can be dual-licensed under ...


16

I was wondering, since the license aligns with being able to use the layout / design... The license footer states something different: site design / logo © 2014 stack exchange inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required The design, site and all the code in it is under a "all rights reserved" license. The content (...


13

This is covered by section 3 of the Terms of Service (linked to from every page as “legal”): You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. […] Subscriber warrants, represents and agrees Subscriber has the right ...


12

It's already in the FAQ (kind of): All contributions are licensed under Creative Commons and this site is collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. Also, the FAQ is not a good place for legalese, it's purpose is to give a quick overview of what the site is about, not provide insight in complex matters like this one. The community can shape the FAQ up to a ...


8

If you're really interested only in the Markdown to HTML conversion, then Stack Overflow seems to use PageDown on the client and markdownsharp on the server, both are open source. Though what you're describing sounds like a job for a wiki, and there is a huge number of those, I think some of them support Markdown too (most have their own formatting language,...


8

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 ...


8

We certainly don't want moderators to avoid acting if they feel it's necessary or for a site's community to avoid developing their own policies about what's acceptable, but I feel I should note that in general moderators should not feel obligated to act on alleged copyright or other legal violations. We have a process for copyright owners to report any ...


7

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 ...


7

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. ...


7

As far as I'm aware, if you post code in a question, you're licensing it with CC-BY-SA 3.0. That is, link to it, say who made it, and use for free, commercial applications allowed. What you can do is post the part you want to get reviewed as CC-BY-SA, then link to some other place for the rest of the code - but all that does is stop people from legally ...


6

The software is not open-source. It's available but expensive (and I don't know whether it's available as source code). There are several clones if you'd like to look at those.


6

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 ...


6

Stack Exchange staff proposed a license change to MIT within the last year. In my argument against the change, I pointed out that it was a bad idea, especially for Code Review, since our intention is to share code for discussion, not to give it away, which is what an MIT license would essentially do. On top of that, there were over a dozen issues raised by ...


4

Problems you point out with the CC-BY-SA license: Incompatible with major software licenses Code has to be re-licensed, if incompatible And so I think you're coming at this completely the wrong way. Firstly, at Code Review we teach you to code better. You provide code for us to critique and should grow as a programmer out of it. We're not here as free, ...


3

The blog you link is from 2009, seven years ago. There are plenty of discussions on meta and lengthy words in the Stack Exchange Network Terms of Service and Content Policy. But your question is more a question of should do not required to do. Something that you can do, that I've done, is use a widget to link to code review reviews in the README, where ...


3

I'd say what you quote from the jsFiddle website is more that jsFiddle does not claim anything about that code. You have not posted a link to the code and questions in question, so it's hard to say if not attribution requirements are met just inside the source form or in the context of the work (e.g. there where it is linked). Next to that please keep in ...


2

Creative Commons have their own List of compatible licenses At the time of writing there is two licenses that are deemed compatible (with BY-SA 4.0), namely the Free Art License v1.3. and GPLv3 (which only works one-way) They also have a list of rejected compatibility proposals right below the list of compatible licenses, which as of now is empty New ...


1

There are key components to this question that I think are missing to be able to accurately answer. But what is probably more important, is that a site for programmers is unlikely to have a lawyer that knows all the ins and outs of your question. And I doubt they'd be able to actually accurately answer this question without writing a large book. But there's ...


1

I'm the OP of the question. It would have been nice to allow me to get the feedback from the respondents since we all put in a fair amount of time and effort and that is all wasted.


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