Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by awda 4401 days ago
And why would you claim MIT license on the code which you didn't write and has no license listed?
1 comments
seanewest 4401 days ago
I think it is good practice to license packages on npm, even when you are not the original author (which is very common on npm).
link
Alupis 4401 days ago
Well... technically something with no license is the most restrictive form of a license; as-in nobody has the right to use it nor republish it nor modify it. Not being the copyright holder forbids you from assigning a license.

However, for a trivial piece of code as this... it could be argued it's not copyright-able and therefore you are OK... but just be careful in the future.

link
bradleyjg 4401 days ago
If it's not copyrightable it's deceptive to add a purported copyright license. If it is, he has no right to relicense it. Either way not a good move.
link
seanewest 4401 days ago
Actually I just looked the copyright issue up: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4007674/whats-the-default....

Unpublishing!

link
Alupis 4401 days ago
Again, I dont think a snippet this trivial is subject to copyright... I just wanted to point out you should mind these matters in the future. Besides offending a developer, you could get into some trouble.

Many times I've emailed devs on Github regarding some code they have that I'd like to use part of but they've failed to assign a license. A few time's I've been turned away... but usually the dev just forgot or was not aware others couldn't freely use it.

link