Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

16
  • 27
    The "Public Domain" is not a license. Licenses are a type of contracts. The Public Domain is the set of works that fall outside of copyright, for whatever reason (eg too old, not creative, explicitly put there). Even so, your intent is clear enough to put your code in it. Commented May 22, 2009 at 8:10
  • 51
    "Public domain" does not exist in many countries, so if you want everybody to be able to use your code snippets without worries, consider using CC0 (if you like Creative Commons licences), WTFPL, Unlicence, or the like. Commented Nov 30, 2011 at 21:08
  • 3
    This is much more helpful than the accepted answer, but for such a re-dedication to be meaningful, it really needs to be a license in itself (as @ChrisJester-Young noted). The license closest to the public domain is the Unlicense. Commented Mar 10, 2014 at 18:25
  • Thanks! I've added this statement to my profile as well, including the Unlicense specifically. Commented May 5, 2014 at 20:37
  • 3
    @ChrisJester-Young, Is WTFPL a real copyright that actually works in court? Commented Jun 17, 2014 at 16:16
  • 1
    @Pacerier (I'm not a lawyer.) The only free software licence that I'm aware of having been tested in court is GPL. The only time WTFPL will get tested in court is if a copyright holder reneges on the licence and tries to sue "after the fact", since technically there is no way for the licensee to violate the licence. I have not heard of such a case. Commented Jun 17, 2014 at 17:03
  • 2
    @ChrisJester-Young, So shouldn't we instead opt for GPL rather than Unlicense and friends? Commented Jun 17, 2014 at 19:03
  • 10
    @Pacerier No, because here, our intent (as copyright holders) is to enable everyone to do anything they want with our code snippets. Using the GPL won't achieve that. CC0, Unlicence, and WTFPL are supposed to be "as close to public domain as possible" licences. The GPL is not such a licence. Commented Jun 17, 2014 at 19:05
  • @ChrisJester-Young, Actually, effectively wouldn't WTFPL and Unlicence actually allow other people to start claiming that they created our work? Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 18:55
  • 3
    @Pacerier nope. In many countries, attribution, integrity and a few other such rights can not be changed or given away or such. Commented Oct 12, 2014 at 0:26
  • @chx, However no one knows who is speaking the truth. They can claim that it is theirs and there's no way to counter-prove that it belongs to me. Commented Oct 12, 2014 at 5:45
  • 4
    That snippet only has value until someone comes along and edits your question, then the license goes back to cc-wiki again. Commented Jun 8, 2016 at 16:14
  • 3
    I would also make sure that you phrase that this is an addition to the Creative Commons "default" of stackoverflow. If you present your signature as voiding instead of expanding upon the stackoverflow terms of use, you may not have a legal footing. Commented Jan 15, 2018 at 10:19
  • 1
    You might want to write that on all Stack Exchange profiles you have then: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/… - all Stack Exchange websites use the same license. Very cool idea and I'm putting it on all my profiles now (with the WTFPL license though). Commented Dec 23, 2020 at 21:32
  • 1
    Or actually, CC0, as WTFPL and Unlicense might have problems with some parts. But I don't understand enough of that, so I'll just go with this on Wikipedia: "The Free Software Foundation and the Open Knowledge Foundation approved CC0 as a recommended license to dedicate content to the public domain. The FSF and the Open Source Initiative, however, do not recommend the usage of this license for software due to inclusion of a clause expressly stating it does not grant patent licenses.". So CC0 it is for SE websites. Just putting this here for licenses newbies like me to be warned about it. Commented Dec 24, 2020 at 1:32