[jamietanna]

I'm not sure why this has been flagged - its not possible to copy code from the repo, as it defaults to All-Rights-Reserved (aka proprietary)

Unless that's explicitly the intent, in which case that's fair

[thayne]

It is quite possible that the author isn't aware that "all rights reserved" is the default and intended the license to be more open.

If they do want to keep it proprietary, it would be nice to make that explicit.

[maxloh]

MIT and CC-BY-4.0 are the industry standards for code snippets and documentation, respectively.

If the author intends for the work to be copyleft, non-commercial, or a combination of those, there are specific licenses within the Creative Commons family that satisfy those requirements. These are already widely used for open-source books on GitHub.

This is why I suggested "any Creative Commons licenses" rather than a specific one. My goal wasn't to spark an argument over which one is the "best", but rather to provide the author with options to choose from, depending on their specific needs.

[antonvs]

Are you proposing that people who want to use this code should just assume they can do so, violate the implied copyright, and accept the associated risk?