3 ms·
Drew's gem doesn't specify a license. It may be open source, but it's not clear what the license is. That doesn't help in this kind of a situation.
by calvin 14y ago
Drew's gem doesn't specify a license. It may be open source, but it's not clear what the license is. That doesn't help in this kind of a situation.
- zhuzhuor 14y agoIf no license is specified, then the author(s) have all the rights.
- drewtemp 14y agoCorrect. No license implies copyright.
- calvin 14y agoI'd explicitly state the license to be blunt, obvious, and avoid any confusion.
- drewtemp 14y agoAgreed and lesson learned.
- orjan 14y agoCopyright exists regardless of license. So to say "implies copyright" isn't exactly true.
- chris_wot 14y agoIn terms of material implication, the only way that proposition can be false is if there was a copyright license but there was no copyright.
- 178 14y agoThe author (or his company) always has the copyrights (if it is not sold) and thus can license it any way(s) wanted, for example und open source licenses. Authors in certain countries can also release their code into the public domain -- that would be the only situation where there is no copyright involved anymore.
- arohner 14y agoActually, it does. If you don't have an OSS license, it defaults to standard copyright, which means TaxCloud has even less legal right to copy the code. Drew could have used a license that legally granted commercial use without attribution, and in that case he'd have a bigger problem.