Bugs and Suggestions

• Sometimes the uploaded images would disappear and I would have to reupload them (happened once).
• Sometimes the images were uploaded (I could see them in a browser using a direct link), but would not appear in the article. Their URI was the relative 996504/imagename.png; and I tried just imagename.png. As a workaround, I used the absolute URIs.
• My reputation points do not show the addition of an article.

The list of available licenses is too short and doesn't cover a lot of cases:

• There are 3 varieties of BSD license: 4-clause (old), 3-clause (new), 2-clause (newest). Both 3-clause and 2-clause are widely used.
  
• There are more versions of MPL license, not just 1.1. Firefox is licensed under MPL 2.0, for example. It is also partially viral (it infects files), so the info is incorrect.
  
• Among Creative Commons license family, only CC-BY-SA-2.5, CC-BY-SA-3.0, CC-BY-3.0 and CC-BY-ND-3.0 are present. Why only these versions and varieties? The current version of CC family of licenses is 4.0.
  
• Among GPL license family, only LGPLv3 and GPLv3 are present. Where's AGPL? Where are older versions? Linux is licensed GPLv2 and it isn't changing anytime soon. AGPL may not have gained popularity, but several popular projects use it.
  
• All varities of "public domain" inspired licenses are not present, including CC0, Unlicense, WTFPL etc.
  
• A crazy number of licenses specific to languages and environments are missing, like PHP, Python etc.
  

Furthermore, article text and code can be covered by different licenses (for example, text under CC-BY, code under BSD) and both may be covered by multiple licenses (for example, some popular projects are dual-licensed GPL/commercial). The requirement to choose just one license from a very short list forces authors to provide incorrect and incomplete information.

Also, the "default license" CPOL isn't OSI approved, isn't FSF approved, isn't GPL compatible, but that's a different matter, which no one at Code Project seems to care about. Come on, is forbidding "immoral or improper" usage so much more important than compatibility with the rest of the world?

Overall, licensing functionality is badly broken.

I suggest adding a complete OSI list, at least. Ideally, I'd prefer being able to provide a custom license. Also, separate licenses for article text and code, as well as multi-licensing should be supported. Fixing CPOL would be nice too, but I don't believe it'll happen.

P.S. When I posted my article some time ago, the editor said that MLP 2.0 will be added. Well, two years later, still nothing has changed. Now I want to post an article licensed under CC-BY-4.0, with code licensed under WTFPL* (aka "public comain for jurisdictions disallowing public domain"), which in turn relies on third-paty code under MIT, BSD 3-clause "New" and BSD 2-clause "Simplified". I have no idea what on Earth I am supposed to choose in the license dropdown. I guess I can choose CC-something-3.0 for both the text and and the code, but it would be a lie.

38 mins ago
1 hr ago
1 hr ago
2 hrs ago
3 days ago
20-Jan-15
...