I find this move by the Stack Exchange network annoying and it seems like they are trying to cash in on the monopoly that they have built up recently as the ultimate Q&A site for developers(and others maybe).
On a more serious(or lighter) note, how about building a similar website as the Stack Exchange network without the new licensing restrictions and a better UI to begin with and launch before March 1,2016? It's an oppurtunistic time to cash in on this unpopular licensing requirement.
The reason for the introduction of this new license is because of the ambiguity of using CC-BY-SA license for code.
It is specifically mentioned in the discussion on Stack Exchange that, under the new terms attribution is required whereas under the old proposal attribution is required only upon request of the copyright holder with regard to code.
My knowledge on this subject is limited, so please correct me if I am wrong.
old proposal != old license. Previously, all content was licensed under CC-BY-SA (the "BY" part means "attribution required" and "SA" is share-alike, essentially a copyleft that's incompatible even with the GPL). They then suggested "MIT but without the attribution" which didn't go down well with some people, so now they're suggesting "MIT but you don't need to paste the license into the code", meaning that the code is MIT licensed but it's enough if you put the URL of the stackoverflow answer in a comment.
The new license (basically MIT) is a lot more permissive than the old one (CC-BY-SA), which was compatible with virtually no open source license and just doesn't make a lot of sense for code.
I work at Stack Overflow. I've been working on this licensing initiative for a year now. Moving to the MIT only protects the company insofar as it protects the community. I consider myself very lucky to work for a company where community & business interests align, almost always.
Interestingly, stackoverflow's data loses value fairly quickly with time, since new langs and dad's come so quickly. So while they dominate today, they could be replaced.
Amusingly most of my recent posts are not exactly desired, but the old goodies "copy folder structure without files in bash" and "How to handle exceptions on [6 year old] JS grid" keep getting upvotes because they're interesting to folks who are new to the area.
They were questions I had at the time, and tech I worked with that I don't any longer but still in wide use.
On a more serious(or lighter) note, how about building a similar website as the Stack Exchange network without the new licensing restrictions and a better UI to begin with and launch before March 1,2016? It's an oppurtunistic time to cash in on this unpopular licensing requirement.
A new startup idea maybe?