Looks like, by default, it licenses the code to be viewable and useable by any third party, but only can be duplicated on GitHub itself. Actually, being able t

Looks like, by default, it licenses the code to be viewable and useable by any third party, but only can be duplicated on GitHub itself. Actually, being able to use/perform would seem to contradict the duplication statement since you'd likely have to duplicate the code elsewhere than GitHub to view/perform it. Another issue is, what if I start under the default terms, someone clones the repo, and then I post it under, say, a GPL? Does that mean fork of the original is now perpetually under terms of the default license and can the fork be forked? Seems like you'd want to be very careful about allowing a default license like this to take effect... so much so that it raises a secondary issue... I'm not a lawyer but, I wonder if your terms of service can passively force a licensing agreement like this and still hold legal muster. We're talking about much more than simply licensing GitHub to display your code if you don't license it otherwise. Here GitHub is essentially causing you to enter into agreements with unrelated third parties on an opt out basis. Unless there are warnings about what you are about to do, seems like it could cause problems for both the licensor and licensee. Some say a default license is needed, but there is a default license position: which is you are not licensed to use the code unless granted permission to do. When I don't select a license, it seems more natural for GitHub to simply block forking and repo access to anyone other than the owner and allowing only the unlicensed code to be displayed per an agreement with GitHub. That only requires that the GitHub user and GitHub have an agreement rather than the GitHub user and an unrelated third party. Or explicitly force a license choice on repo creation: pick one or upload something. That too, would get past this without forcing a license which, to me at least, looks problematic.