[40four]

I like the simplicity of it. One PHP file, throw it on a server with Apache and rock and roll.

Other comments are right to point out that this site is setting itself up to be abused. My feeling is that this is intended to be a demo. I doubt the creator is trying to provide a real service here. And they might be in for a rude awakening if it gains traction.

But, it looks like they intend this to be open source. Anyone can clone the repo and run this on their own server! Unfortunately, the repo does not have a license file, which makes me a little uneasy.

Edit: I didn’t say that very well. With no license file, technically we cannot actually use this code since it defaults to ‘All rights reserved’. I think the author might not realize that though. It seems they intend it to be ‘open’ based on line 334.

Also, it is not particularly good PHP code, a little rough around the edges. But hey, it's a cool demonstration on a very straight forward way to upload & share files! Could be a good starting point to develop further.

[s_dev]

>the repo does not have a license file, which makes me a little uneasy.

Surely the author is bearing the liability of getting burned by not specifying a licence.

[detaro]

How do they "get burned" by that? Not having a license means you don't get to use it and are violating their copyright if you do so (possibly except the things specified in Github ToS: look at the code on github)

[s_dev]

So not having a license means a default one was used? Which licence is that?

[detaro]

The default is that you don't have rights to code unless they are explicitly given to you. The Github ToS do specify some rights that are granted through uploading to GH, but they don't constitute any usual license, nor one that makes any of it usable to you.

[blueflow]

"Not licensed" is the default. Its similar to what the IP industry calls "stealing".

[gugagore]

No. If you find some code online, or on a thumb drive on the sidewalk, and it is unlicensed, it's incorrect to assume that it's equivalent to being permissively licensed for you to do whatever you want with it.

[cyberbanjo]

Why? I thought this type of situation would default non-permissive licensing in-lieu of an explicitly permissive one.

[40four]

Yeah, I edited my comment as I think I miss-spoke actually. Technically, GitHub as a platform will allow us to fork or clone this code. But with no license file, from a legal point of view, we cannot use it, or whatever else an open source license would allow.

[frabert]

I don't think you have much responsibility in not specifying a license, since it defaults to "all rights reserved", thus preventing anyone else from using that code.