7 ms·

Looks like public-domain now, since no license mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

simonbrown 15y ago
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure public domain is not the default.
- loumf 15y ago
  Also not a lawyer, but pretty sure that no license is the same as "All rights reserved" (meaning, the most restrictive possible). Claiming "All rights reserved" doesn't give you more rights, but does establish that you communicated it and that anyone violating it had a better chance of knowing that. (I think -- not a lawyer) His statement to fork, fix, and ask for pulls perhaps gives some rights, but not usage or deployment ones. In other word, if the author intends something else, they should say so. EDIT: just noticed ThirdParty folder -- that changes the default to whatever is compatible with the licenses asserted in these libraries. I didn't check them.
  - sadfasdfads 15y ago
    Hmm- I think that is a grey area. Note what is said here about default license/rights on GitHub as of 10-7-2011: "Copyright and Content Ownership We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories. GitHub does not pre-screen Content, but GitHub and its designee have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or remove any Content that is available via the Service. You shall defend GitHub against any claim, demand, suit or proceeding made or brought against GitHub by a third party alleging that Your Content, or Your use of the Service in violation of this Agreement, infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property rights of a third party or violates applicable law, and shall indemnify GitHub for any damages finally awarded against, and for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by, GitHub in connection with any such claim, demand, suit or proceeding; provided, that GitHub (a) promptly gives You written notice of the claim, demand, suit or proceeding; (b) gives You sole control of the defense and settlement of the claim, demand, suit or proceeding (provided that You may not settle any claim, demand, suit or proceeding unless the settlement unconditionally releases GitHub of all liability); and (c) provides to You all reasonable assistance, at Your expense. The look and feel of the Service is copyright ©2011 GitHub Inc. All rights reserved. You may not duplicate, copy, or reuse any portion of the HTML/CSS, Javascript, or visual design elements or concepts without express written permission from GitHub." http://help.github.com/terms-of-service/ http://help.github.com/terms-of-service/
    - loumf 15y ago
      "you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories" Ok, but not use or deploy the results. Basically -- the author should add a license.
  - terinjokes 15y ago
    I did some checking: - Facebook Toolkit is Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) 1.1 - FluidKit says it's the "New BSD License" but gives the old 4-clause license. - Google/GData is Apache 2.0 - Json.NET is MIT license - Lucene.NET Apache 2.0 - MEF is the original Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) - LumiSoft.Net seems to be a custom license. I'm not sure what it is - I'm not familar enough with Mono to know what license this code is under, likely LGPL or MIT - PyBinding: MIT - SharpZipLib is GPL with a linking exception - Sqlite is Public Domain - tweetsharp: MIT - log4net: Apache 2.0 With HttpServer, Shell32, Unrar and mshtml unknown. [Edit: formatting]
m_eiman 15y ago
No license mentioned doesn't mean public domain.
JoachimSchipper 15y ago
Under the Berne convention, "all rights reserved" if no license is mentioned. Pretty much every country has signed the Berne convention.
stephenatwork 15y ago
No, that's not how it works. At least in the US, an author has an implicit copyright over his or her work even if he or she does not post a copyright notice. The author would have to explicitly forfeit his or her rights to the work in order for it to be in the public domain.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  This was actually the case in most of the world when the USA was still using a register. It's relatively recently that the USA has signed up to what the rest of the world has been doing for a while ... just for a change. Of course there are some places that haven't signed the Berne Convention and don't have a copyright treaty through TRIPS or something similar.
tobiasu 15y ago
No license/no copyright declaration means no rights in all countries that have signed the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention). This includes the USA since 1989.
- boredguy8 15y ago
  Did you read the page you linked? "Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic" and "Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared."
  - kbutler 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure the grandparent meant "no copyright notice = no rights granted" rather than "no notice = no rights reserved". Maybe I'm just reading it too charitably.
  - tobiasu 15y ago
    Yes I did. My reply was to someone who assumed "no license" would grant him "all rights" (public domain) when in fact it does not give him any rights. For the copyright owner, the reverse is obviously true. You and the other downv^Wredditors read it without considering the context.
warp 15y ago
When you write code, you automatically have copyright on it (in most countries). Failing to include a copyright notice or including a license text does not make your work fall into the public domain. As far as I can tell this code is not currently open source. The only permissions given are: "now fork it, fix it and send pull requests". Which omits some important permissions, without which this cannot be called open source.
- sadfasdfads 15y ago
  The author publicly announced it was open source via HN. "Open-source software is software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees.[19]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source "Works are in the public domain if the intellectual property rights have expired,[1] if the intellectual property rights are forfeited,[2] or if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain He put it on GitHub, and he announced it was Open Source on HN. "There's no license in this case and you cannot claim any intellectual property of the code. It would be the same if you uploaded the content on your own site without providing any license. According to the terms: We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories." http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4007674/whats-the-default-license-of-code-published-at-github http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4007674/whats-the-default... So, I was wrong. He has copyright.
  - mbreese 15y ago
    "Open source" isn't a legal term...

simonbrown 15y ago

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure public domain is not the default.

loumf 15y ago
Also not a lawyer, but pretty sure that no license is the same as "All rights reserved" (meaning, the most restrictive possible). Claiming "All rights reserved" doesn't give you more rights, but does establish that you communicated it and that anyone violating it had a better chance of knowing that. (I think -- not a lawyer) His statement to fork, fix, and ask for pulls perhaps gives some rights, but not usage or deployment ones. In other word, if the author intends something else, they should say so. EDIT: just noticed ThirdParty folder -- that changes the default to whatever is compatible with the licenses asserted in these libraries. I didn't check them.
- sadfasdfads 15y ago
  Hmm- I think that is a grey area. Note what is said here about default license/rights on GitHub as of 10-7-2011: "Copyright and Content Ownership We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories. GitHub does not pre-screen Content, but GitHub and its designee have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or remove any Content that is available via the Service. You shall defend GitHub against any claim, demand, suit or proceeding made or brought against GitHub by a third party alleging that Your Content, or Your use of the Service in violation of this Agreement, infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property rights of a third party or violates applicable law, and shall indemnify GitHub for any damages finally awarded against, and for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by, GitHub in connection with any such claim, demand, suit or proceeding; provided, that GitHub (a) promptly gives You written notice of the claim, demand, suit or proceeding; (b) gives You sole control of the defense and settlement of the claim, demand, suit or proceeding (provided that You may not settle any claim, demand, suit or proceeding unless the settlement unconditionally releases GitHub of all liability); and (c) provides to You all reasonable assistance, at Your expense. The look and feel of the Service is copyright ©2011 GitHub Inc. All rights reserved. You may not duplicate, copy, or reuse any portion of the HTML/CSS, Javascript, or visual design elements or concepts without express written permission from GitHub." http://help.github.com/terms-of-service/ http://help.github.com/terms-of-service/
  - loumf 15y ago
    "you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories" Ok, but not use or deploy the results. Basically -- the author should add a license.
- terinjokes 15y ago
  I did some checking: - Facebook Toolkit is Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) 1.1 - FluidKit says it's the "New BSD License" but gives the old 4-clause license. - Google/GData is Apache 2.0 - Json.NET is MIT license - Lucene.NET Apache 2.0 - MEF is the original Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) - LumiSoft.Net seems to be a custom license. I'm not sure what it is - I'm not familar enough with Mono to know what license this code is under, likely LGPL or MIT - PyBinding: MIT - SharpZipLib is GPL with a linking exception - Sqlite is Public Domain - tweetsharp: MIT - log4net: Apache 2.0 With HttpServer, Shell32, Unrar and mshtml unknown. [Edit: formatting]

m_eiman 15y ago

No license mentioned doesn't mean public domain.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago

stephenatwork 15y ago

No, that's not how it works. At least in the US, an author has an implicit copyright over his or her work even if he or she does not post a copyright notice. The author would have to explicitly forfeit his or her rights to the work in order for it to be in the public domain.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
This was actually the case in most of the world when the USA was still using a register. It's relatively recently that the USA has signed up to what the rest of the world has been doing for a while ... just for a change. Of course there are some places that haven't signed the Berne Convention and don't have a copyright treaty through TRIPS or something similar.

tobiasu 15y ago

No license/no copyright declaration means no rights in all countries that have signed the Berne Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention). This includes the USA since 1989.

boredguy8 15y ago
Did you read the page you linked? "Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic" and "Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared."
- kbutler 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure the grandparent meant "no copyright notice = no rights granted" rather than "no notice = no rights reserved". Maybe I'm just reading it too charitably.
- tobiasu 15y ago
  Yes I did. My reply was to someone who assumed "no license" would grant him "all rights" (public domain) when in fact it does not give him any rights. For the copyright owner, the reverse is obviously true. You and the other downv^Wredditors read it without considering the context.

warp 15y ago

When you write code, you automatically have copyright on it (in most countries). Failing to include a copyright notice or including a license text does not make your work fall into the public domain. As far as I can tell this code is not currently open source. The only permissions given are: "now fork it, fix it and send pull requests". Which omits some important permissions, without which this cannot be called open source.

sadfasdfads 15y ago
The author publicly announced it was open source via HN. "Open-source software is software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees.[19]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source "Works are in the public domain if the intellectual property rights have expired,[1] if the intellectual property rights are forfeited,[2] or if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain He put it on GitHub, and he announced it was Open Source on HN. "There's no license in this case and you cannot claim any intellectual property of the code. It would be the same if you uploaded the content on your own site without providing any license. According to the terms: We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories." http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4007674/whats-the-default-license-of-code-published-at-github http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4007674/whats-the-default... So, I was wrong. He has copyright.
- mbreese 15y ago
  "Open source" isn't a legal term...