As an aside: Don't forget that the absence of a license does not make the work explicitly "free for all", quite the opposite:

https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/

The chances of the original authoring coming back and asking for a takedown etc are usually low for this kind of thing, but still better to go ahead and get a them to set a minimal license which you can then use with the project to carry it forward.

We recently had a project for work using a 3rd party library form GitHub and asked the author to add a license so we could, in the end, safely use it in a soon-to-be release public project.

On Feb 7, 2021, at 3:01 AM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:

Anyway, usually people provide the source code with a license that makes it clear what you can do or not, but this repository has NO LICENSE... this is probably because the author didn't care much on how to license it and I bet it's because he doesn't care much about what people will do with it. Licenses are useful to make restrictions, but not allowing one to provide a build for 64 bits would be sort of insane in the open source world.

Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/