Folks whose website code is out in the open, visible on sites like GitHub or GitLab:
-
@mijndert @mahryekuh I think this allows anyone do to anything they want. Until you give it some license and mark it as a release or something.
-
Marijke Luttekesreplied to Psyhackological last edited by
@psyhackological @mijndert From what I’ve read, omitting a license means that standard copyright laws will apply, meaning you retain most of the copyright. So that’s less permissive than adding a license, as far as I’ve understood.
-
Marijke Luttekesreplied to Paolo Melchiorre last edited by
@paulox Thank you! I honestly wouldn’t even know where to start with this. Licenses are complicated!
(Then again, people go to uni for copyright laws, so what did I expect?)
-
Marijke Luttekesreplied to Marijke Luttekes last edited by
It’s amazing that the respondents have mostly different opinions. This subject is complicated!
-
@mahryekuh @psyhackological good to know - I don't mind if someone uses my code, but 1:1 stealing the 'design' of my website or worse my content is a no-go for me.
-
Psyhackologicalreplied to Marijke Luttekes last edited by
@mahryekuh @mijndert oh nice then. So there is a default license for no license then.
-
Paolo Melchiorrereplied to Marijke Luttekes last edited by
@mahryekuh I would say that every day we face things much more complicated than licenses, but I have noticed that in recent years they don't even ask themselves the question of which license to choose for their content or, worse, which license the content they copy from the internet has. I'm thinking of writing an article on the subject.
-
Marijke Luttekesreplied to Paolo Melchiorre last edited by
@paulox Yes, and I would read that article!
-
@mahryekuh Code’s MIT, content is CC0 public domain dedication https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/.
