We are talking about using the source code in a wider sense than just compiling it and running it, aren't we? Or do you think that those little pieces of code that have no license are useful without creating a derivative work?

Has it been tested in court? In relation to no-explicit-license source code?

That reply is not a reply. I can sue all across Europe for such crap.

Oh.... Really? 19 years of experience and still have to wisen up. Treating other people's work like shit is exactly how others would treat you if you were bold enough to disclose your identity.
But hey... it's fun to hide in anonymity, right?

And thus we get to the crux of the matter - this code is being used and derivative works are being created. The code on GitHub is mostly used by other people in their own projects, not just to compile and run it.
The problem with source code is that compiling it is not allowed implicitly. Compiling source code is be like recording an audio version of the book.

Just because you put some code onto a publicly accessible code repository hosting site, does not imply a license. Otherwise uploading images to a public Flickr or other type of photo sharing site would amount to the same. That is , however, not the case. The implicit licenses are very limited in nature. No court will find that by sharing the code on GitHub or any other site, you released it into public domain. At the very least you will be eligible for monetary compensation and attribution.

Or - by using this code in a commercial environment you have to buy a license. License costs $5'000'000'000'000.

Yes... Viewing the code in the browser and having it in temporary cache in your local storage. Otherwise - no rights. No rights to copy the code outside of the web-page. No rights to compile it. No rights to use it in any useful manner.

No. ToS of this website have that covered.

aka release code into public domain.

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?

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.

Or maybe people have the right to chose the license they release their code under. If you feel that they made a mistake, then please feel free to ask the copyright holders to change the license.

If you need to stay in "the zone" then you don't have a close knit team. You bring up the barrier to be further from the team, not closer.
Furthermore close knit teams know perfectly well when to leave each other alone and know each others' work habits.

As for people who work from home, it's total BS. These people work no harder than anyone else and, in case of children, are in a house that is not conducive to concentration. Working longer hours is not the same as being more productive. There is such thing as a separation of work space and home space that gets in the way and kills performance and concentration.

However, working remotely is not a bad thing per se. It just has to be regularly interchanged with working in the office.

Let me try pull a statement out of context... "500 million inhabitants" is only a third of China.
I would pull something of your's, but your comment history suggests that you can't read or express yourself in more than one sentence.