> 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.

▲

decimalenough 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

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...

	▲	Sephr 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Correct. He did not commit copyright infringement. Just plagiarism.

▲

kamranjon 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

divbzero 3 days ago | parent [-]

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

[2]: 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 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		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...