Aug. 30, 2010
3:18 p.m.
Johan Brichau wrote:
I am not a lawyer but as far as I understand this topic, no license means nobody can use the code at all, which contradicts the fact of having it in a public repository (and you being perfectly happy of people using it).
IANAL. "no license" means it's public domain, so *anybody* can use it. But, if they use it, they have no idea of the terms under which they can use it - a license would may the terms clear. Cautious users would then *not* use it. So the net effect would be that nobody (that is cautious) uses it. There is no contradiction with it being in a public repository. The author is perfectly happy for the public to use it. The problem is that users are likely not happy to use it, without any license terms.