Just participated in discussion about an open source on github.

What's your thoughts about it, must project explicitly allow redistribution and commercial use to be #opensource, or it is enough to just make source code available to reading/modifying?

@vitonsky I'm not a lawyer, but yeah, I think the other person is right, this is pretty much common knowledge IMO. This is why you need to apply a license to your projects. They're copyrighted by default.

@WofWca how lack of license will stop you to use or modify the code?

For what you want to have a license?

@vitonsky Well, you can modify the code, but you can get sued for that.
@WofWca i doubt about it

@vitonsky Would you trust FSF on this?
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicense

> Some developers think that code with no license is automatically in the public domain. That is not true under today's copyright law; rather, all copyrightable works are copyrighted by default. This includes programs. Absent a license to grant users freedom, they don't have any. In some countries, users that download code with no license may infringe copyright merely by compiling it or running it.

Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

@WofWca what about leave those countries?

There are a lot of bad countries. Europe union ban USB, privacy, guns, knives.

That's not a reason to downgrade the world full of technologies. Just leave those countries and live something elsewhere

@vitonsky I think applying a license to a project is easier than trying to convince the world to change the definition of copyright.

@WofWca that's definitely easier. But look around, they will change rules in your business next, as they do with apple when force them to change USB format, inject malware to break encryption in iCloud, implement alternative app store API like in android.

So it may be easier for single person, but not for business with money and some strategic plans

@vitonsky We sort of segued into a political debate, where I don't have a strong opinion.

But if you'd like it: sure, I don't like some things that are happening in some countries, but not all of them are good enough reasons to leave those countries.
Certainly not the fact that you can't modify a program that has no explicit license applied.

@WofWca sure. My point is it not necessary to have rights to re-sell the code to be an open source product.

If you can read the code and can change and rebuild it with no hassle - that is open source.

All other sauce like "right to sell", quick support, etc is just a part of product marketing to be competitive on public open source arena

@vitonsky Perhaps I'm lacking the context of the original discussion.
@vitonsky By the way, IIRC GitHub has something in its TOS where you agree to something (I don't remember what) when you upload the code there. Something like "you give the right to others to read it", but don't quote me on that.