4 ms·
>the repo does not have a license file, which makes me a little uneasy. Surely the author is bearing the liability of getting burned by not specifying a licenc
by s_dev 6y ago
>the repo does not have a license file, which makes me a little uneasy.
Surely the author is bearing the liability of getting burned by not specifying a licence.
- cyberbanjo 6y agoWhy? I thought this type of situation would default non-permissive licensing in-lieu of an explicitly permissive one.
- frabert 6y agoI don't think you have much responsibility in not specifying a license, since it defaults to "all rights reserved", thus preventing anyone else from using that code.
- gugagore 6y agoNo. If you find some code online, or on a thumb drive on the sidewalk, and it is unlicensed, it's incorrect to assume that it's equivalent to being permissively licensed for you to do whatever you want with it.
- detaro 6y agoHow do they "get burned" by that? Not having a license means you don't get to use it and are violating their copyright if you do so (possibly except the things specified in Github ToS: look at the code on github)
- s_dev 6y agoSo not having a license means a default one was used? Which licence is that?
- detaro 6y agoThe default is that you don't have rights to code unless they are explicitly given to you. The Github ToS do specify some rights that are granted through uploading to GH, but they don't constitute any usual license, nor one that makes any of it usable to you.
- blueflow 6y ago"Not licensed" is the default. Its similar to what the IP industry calls "stealing".
- 40four 6y agoYeah, I edited my comment as I think I miss-spoke actually. Technically, GitHub as a platform will allow us to fork or clone this code. But with no license file, from a legal point of view, we cannot use it, or whatever else an open source license would allow.