I am one of those who (would) publish their code source-open, but not Open Source. The reason is not that I reject the legal system per se (although I do dislik

I am one of those who (would) publish their code source-open, but not Open Source. The reason is not that I reject the legal system per se (although I do dislike and fundamentally criticize it). The reason is that publishing code without a license gives me the effect I want. People can look at my code, they can use it privately and do whatever they want. They cannot build a business with it or use it in any way I don't like without my permission. Yes, people with a contempt of copyright law (which tend to align with me politically a bit) profit from this. People who have internalized copyright law and won't even look at my unlicensed code in secret, on their phone on the toilet, because it's 'wrong', are disadvantaged. That's great! Most importantly, I don't give any rights away. "All rights reserved" is the default. And I don't enter any obligations. Remember, we like to talk about licenses that are attached to code. But how are they implemented? In reality, licenses are in fact like contracts between you and the license taker. I'm extremely hesitant to sign contracts with strangers - I especially don't want to offer a blanket contract to everybody who reads my code and wants to accept it. I can't be 100% sure that such a contract doesn't create any obligations for me that I don't want - the legal system is so complicated that even lawyers have problems finding all side effects of clauses. At the very least, I'll be giving courses of action away if I license my code. Without a license, putting code online is a bit like writing a poem in a park. People can look over your shoulder, read what you're writing, you can interact with them if you like, they can take your words and pass them on - but they can't publish a book with them, and you have no obligations towards those people.