2

I was following this tutorial on YouTube - https://youtu.be/V_lAhqLXT9A where you download some starter files and then edit them according to the tutorial to make a website.

I wonder what legal status the result has? I know that YT videos are not in the public domain, but I am not sure what about the information inside them e.g. snippets of some code.

Also, there was no license int the starter files.

Thanks

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

[...]

Also, there was no license int the starter files.

[...]

You wrote it... they have no license!

Having no license, they don't qualify as open source software, so theoretically you should actually not use them.

I guess they won't sue you for using them to start your projects, but I guess they might want to if you use them to make and publish your own competing material for helping start a project.

I guess one should be cautious not to check such code in version control until it's so much changed it's unrecognizable.

Improve this answer
5
  • Well, I see that the files have no license. But the author himself tells you to download them (copy) and write some code into them (modify), which is a bit confusing. I was planning to follow the tutorial, then modify the result to suit my needs and use it as a website form an open-source project which is part of my diploma thesis.
    – J.Valášek
    Commented Sep 17, 2019 at 17:35
  • Surely they are pure at heart, maybe even their lawyers are pure at heart. However, their lawyers have to do their job, whatever it is... like everyone else.
    – 27096
    Commented Sep 17, 2019 at 17:38
  • If being pure at heart was the only important thing, nobody would need a licenses and contracts, I guess?
    – 27096
    Commented Sep 17, 2019 at 17:39
  • @J.Valášek There are other ways to license a work besides a declaration in the work itself. If the tutorial video was posted by the author of the files (the question isn't clear on this) then the tutorial itself may well constitute a license to use the fiels.
    – David Siegel
    Commented Sep 17, 2019 at 22:57
  • David is right. I guess jurisdiction might consider video constitutive of proof.
    – 27096
    Commented Sep 17, 2019 at 23:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .