I think GP is referring to the fact that an author’s work is copyright protected by default, and a license is needed to permit others to use freely [1]. StackOverflow posts are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 [2].
(Disclaimer: Just commenting on GP’s statement about “no license”, not on the specific disagreement or apology mentioned above which I am unfamiliar with.)
It's worth noting that the code in question was also open sourced and permissively licensed by the original author as he stated in the thread[1]. I guess this isn't really about licensing at all, just the original author seems to think it was rude, and also doesn't want to accept any of the apologies that have been offered.
I think GP is referring to the fact that an author’s work is copyright protected by default, and a license is needed to permit others to use freely [1]. StackOverflow posts are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 [2].
[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
[2]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
(Disclaimer: Just commenting on GP’s statement about “no license”, not on the specific disagreement or apology mentioned above which I am unfamiliar with.)
It's worth noting that the code in question was also open sourced and permissively licensed by the original author as he stated in the thread[1]. I guess this isn't really about licensing at all, just the original author seems to think it was rude, and also doesn't want to accept any of the apologies that have been offered.
[1]: https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/pull/684#issuecomment...