Comment Re:Uh ... What? (Score 1) 320
Unfortunately, in most legal jurisdictions, things are copyrighted out of the gate, and can only become more open with an explicit act.
In every jurisdiction that is a signatory to the major copyright treaties these days. It hasn't been necessary to assert copyright explicitly for some time now, though some places still have consequences if you do beyond merely assigning copyright to the creator of a new work by default.
But the interesting thing is that the "act" you're talking about doesn't actually need to be granting explicit permission to copy a work. If that were true, no-one would be able to, for example, download the files to view a web site or receive an e-mail without either getting the creator's explicit permission in advance or infringing copyright.
As I said before, I doubt a court would hold that merely uploading a file to a site like GitHub is sufficient to grant any implied permissions beyond viewing that file. However, if the legal argument just for viewing it like that is that this is an expected consequence of uploading the file to such a site and therefore the uploader is giving their implied consent (assuming of course that they are able to do so in terms of copyright ownership) then I wonder whether there could also be a slight legal grey area because by an analogous argument we're talking about uploading files to a site whose major use is to share the code so others can also use it.
I'm guessing (as a non-lawyer) that if any case like that ever did come to court, there would have to be some sort of finding of fact about the reasonable expectations of the person doing the uploading to determine what if any implied consent they might be giving, and any time a word like "reasonable" is used in law there's scope for interpretation.
(Obviously it's unlikely that anyone wanting to use the code in a legitimate serious/commercial/public project would just lift it if there were no licence giving them explicit permission to do so. I'm just idly wondering how a real court might rule when faced with a sufficiently devious lawyer.)