3 ms·

> no license, and seemingly intended to share it freely with the world No license means you don’t intend to share it “freely”, since you didn’t share any right

by euifii 9mo ago

> no license, and seemingly intended to share it freely with the world No license means you don’t intend to share it “freely”, since you didn’t share any rights. By default, you don’t own things people shared on the internet just because it’s there. That being said I’ve even seen people with licenses in their repos who get mad when people used their code, there’s just no telling and it’s best to just treat random sources of code as anathema.

kamranjon 9mo ago
I'm curious if you would have the same opinion about code shared on stack overflow?
- divbzero 9mo ago
  I think GP is referring to the fact that an author’s work is copyright protected by default, and a license is needed to permit others to use freely [1]. StackOverflow posts are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 [2]. [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing (Disclaimer: Just commenting on GP’s statement about “no license”, not on the specific disagreement or apology mentioned above which I am unfamiliar with.)
  - kamranjon 9mo ago
    It's worth noting that the code in question was also open sourced and permissively licensed by the original author as he stated in the thread[1]. I guess this isn't really about licensing at all, just the original author seems to think it was rude, and also doesn't want to accept any of the apologies that have been offered. [1]: https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment-8354231 https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment...
decimalenough 9mo ago
Per Eli's own comment here, the original copied code was straight up public domain and thus does not even require attribution. https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment-8354231 https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment...
- Sephr 9mo ago
  Correct. He did not commit copyright infringement. Just plagiarism.

by euifii 9mo ago

kamranjon 9mo ago

I'm curious if you would have the same opinion about code shared on stack overflow?

divbzero 9mo ago
I think GP is referring to the fact that an author’s work is copyright protected by default, and a license is needed to permit others to use freely [1]. StackOverflow posts are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 [2]. [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing (Disclaimer: Just commenting on GP’s statement about “no license”, not on the specific disagreement or apology mentioned above which I am unfamiliar with.)
- kamranjon 9mo ago
  It's worth noting that the code in question was also open sourced and permissively licensed by the original author as he stated in the thread[1]. I guess this isn't really about licensing at all, just the original author seems to think it was rude, and also doesn't want to accept any of the apologies that have been offered. [1]: https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment-8354231 https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment...

decimalenough 9mo ago

Per Eli's own comment here, the original copied code was straight up public domain and thus does not even require attribution. https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment-8354231 https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment...

Sephr 9mo ago
Correct. He did not commit copyright infringement. Just plagiarism.