[calvin]

Drew's gem doesn't specify a license. It may be open source, but it's not clear what the license is. That doesn't help in this kind of a situation.

[arohner]

Actually, it does. If you don't have an OSS license, it defaults to standard copyright, which means TaxCloud has even less legal right to copy the code.

Drew could have used a license that legally granted commercial use without attribution, and in that case he'd have a bigger problem.

[zhuzhuor]

If no license is specified, then the author(s) have all the rights.

[drewtemp]

Correct. No license implies copyright.

[orjan]

Copyright exists regardless of license. So to say "implies copyright" isn't exactly true.

[178]

The author (or his company) always has the copyrights (if it is not sold) and thus can license it any way(s) wanted, for example und open source licenses. Authors in certain countries can also release their code into the public domain -- that would be the only situation where there is no copyright involved anymore.

[chris_wot]

In terms of material implication, the only way that proposition can be false is if there was a copyright license but there was no copyright.

[calvin]

I'd explicitly state the license to be blunt, obvious, and avoid any confusion.

[drewtemp]

Agreed and lesson learned.