[zzo38computer]

> If a public repo does not have a license, it does not mean it free to copy and distribute.

Whether or not it is free to copy and distribute, it should be free to copy and distribute. (My opinion is that copyright is no good; if the file is public then you should be allowed to copy and distribute it.)

> If a private repo has an open source license like MIT, then the crawler has a right to copy and distribute that repo. Regardless if it has authorization to access the repo or not.

I should not think so. The license would only apply if you have a copy of it anyways. If you are not authorized to access it because it is private, then you would have to get a copy from somewhere else, and if nobody else is providing a copy, that shouldn't give you the right to unauthorized access. However, if it has been done, then it is done, so now there is a copy, and the license (if it is a license that allows copying it in this way) would authorize you to continue to use and distribute the copy that you have.

[s4mw1se]

i’m not saying I agree or care about any of it. A sane company would never allow the use of source code from a third party without a license.

If repo is forked and the license is deleted the source code would need to be hashed to verify its the exact version of an open source repo. Mainly they don’t want copyleft or “malcious” license infecting their IP

If the hashes don’t match then it’s not technically the same code, so a company can’t safely use it without a license.