12

While ago, I wrote an answer to the question "I need rules to drop some malicious Apache connection".

Since then, I feel the answer incomplete. The reason is that, I made few scripts (1, 2, 3), which are the main contribution of the answer. But because the answer[1] is too long, due to the character limit, I moved these scripts outside.

So my question is:

Is it a good idea to split the answer in two parts and move these scripts into answer's body?

[1] The answer probably goes out of scope of this format, but while I wrote it I generalised my experience and also gained a new. In the end of all, the answer contains several useful ideas and references according to the question.

Update: The discussed answer is completely updated.

I followed the advises given here and created a GitHub repository named WWW Security Assistant. There is a branch, called ask_ubuntu, dedicated to the discussed answer. So the further updates will be applied on the master branch.

4
  • 5
    I would say, it is better parts of the answer, like scripts, are outside the site, rather than split in to two half answers. The issue would be the voting, you could be getting double votes up or down on a single answer. Also, both parts of the answer would not appear after each other in the list, depending on there sorting, a user could find the second part, think it is nonsense and vote it down. IMO it just does not fit the sites format. An alternative would be to write two related answers, that can also stand alone, it would be difficult but allowed.
    – Mark Kirby
    Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 11:25
  • Thanks for this answer @MarkKirby!
    – pa4080
    Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15
  • Actually, I think the voting isn't an issue, you're allowed to write more than one answer. The formatting and flow is important, though. I agree, don't split it up. I think the situation where a single author should write two distinct and each wholly self-contained answers is fairly rare - and (down)voting will take care of abuses anyways.
    – Aaron Hall
    Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 17:17
  • 1
    @MarkKirby thought with the two related answers: it could be split into the different subsections (e.g. configuring Iptables) by asking separate questions, answering those and linking them, which would then mean it should be easy enough to keep most of the content on the site (so not dependent on pastebin). OTHERWISE using github will should avoid having to convert to Unix and allow better control over licensing and versions - not to mention it could be set up so others can report bugs and fixes easily.
    – Wilf
    Commented Aug 28, 2017 at 0:03

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13

There are a few problems.

  • Pastebin deletes things 6 months after the last view.

  • Posting code on here or Pastebin.com puts it under a qualified CC-attribution license in a way that you simply aren't licensed to under GPL (as one of your scripts is) unless you are the owner. Link to the original or make sure you distribute it from somewhere you can set the license.

  • Some of your things don't have any license in them. That may be a repeat of the above, it may be a separate issue.

Move this stuff from Pastebin to a Github (or other) repo that you control and also review the licensing situation of these scripts to make sure you're allowed to redistribute things.

5
  • 3
    Bit of an abrupt edit but I just noticed that one of the scripts was GPLv2 and possibly not yours. IANAL but as far as I know, redistributing GPLv2 under a license that changes the terms of use is incompatible (and terminates your license to use it at all). If you wrote them, that's not an issue (you're essentially dual-licensing them) but if they're not, be careful.
    – Oli Mod
    Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 12:07
  • 1
    Thank you for these advices, Oli. I'm using pro version of Pastebin, and they claim this content will not be deleted. Whatever, I will educate myself about licensing, and will make my first repository in Github.
    – pa4080
    Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 12:25
  • 3
    @pa4080 Github also has the benefit that people can contribute to it, which they can't on pastebins.
    – muru
    Commented Aug 23, 2017 at 0:29
  • What about paste.ubuntu.com ?
    – You'reAGitForNotUsingGit
    Commented Aug 28, 2017 at 1:53
  • @AndroidDev I'd be wary of anything (even Ubuntu branded) that doesn't explicitly state a content license. This also makes no claims about retention so it's probably unsuitable here on two pegs.
    – Oli Mod
    Commented Aug 29, 2017 at 9:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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