Provided that you own a copy of the source code, modifying and compiling it in order to run it is not infringing per the Copyright Act; no implicit license is needed for that. The implicit license is needed for downloading the source code lawfully, prior to any compiling taking place. I've pointed others to it, but please check out 17 USC 117.
Has it been tested in court? In relation to no-explicit-license source code?
No license is as bad as GPL.
Really? I mean.... this is a seriously uninformed comment. No license is just that - no license. Just because you can see the code, does not give you permission to use it. A licence gives you permission to use it. License quite literally means permission. GPL is a licence, thus is a permission, even under strict permission.
So... GPL = permission. No license = no permission. So how are they equal?
If you want to use GPL code, your own code has to be GPL. The GPL isn't viral or dangerous.
That is not true. You have to license your code under GPL terms when distributing. Simple as that. GPL is not applicable to things that aren't being distributed and as a copyright owner, you are not forced to use GPL for your own code.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion