You may have seen The MIT License – Clarity on Using Code on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange and A New Code License: The MIT, this time with Attribution Required.

But I'm no legal expert, and I'm confused what the changes would include. What's the difference between CC-By-SA and MIT, and what about with attribution?

1 Answer 1


Broadly speaking, the difference is the "sharealike" clause of CC-BY-SA. Any derivative of a CC-BY-SA work must itself be licensed CC-BY-SA, whereas a derivative of an "MIT with attribution" work can be under any license the author wants.

There are a number of other differences in the fine print (eg. CC forbids DRM, where MIT doesn't), but that's the big one.

  • Do any of them address parents? I remember GPL does, how about MIT and CC-BY-SA?
    – Viktor
    Jan 15, 2016 at 1:00
  • @Viktor, MIT says nothing about patents; CC-BY-SA merely notes that the license covers copyright only, not patent or trademark rights.
    – Mark
    Jan 15, 2016 at 1:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .