Also - Love the positive comments in this thread. Proud of this community.
Also, if code has no license, then apparently it's equivalent to having an "All Rights Reserved" notice, preventing any re-use of the code at all, according to http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/05/21/unlicensed-cod...
"Experienced developers won’t touch unlicensed code because they have no legal right to use it." http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/05/23/unlicensed-cod...
So if TempleOS has no license, then it may not be strictly legal to add networking support and then re-release the code. Glancing at the "Downloads" section shows no mention of a license. Of course, no one is going to be able to enforce those protections in Terry's case, but if it's likely to simultaneously offend him and be illegal, is it a good idea?
What a strange situation.
EDIT: TempleOS turns out to be in the public domain.
TempleOS is an x86_64, multi-tasking, multi-cored, public domain, open source, ring-0-only, single-address-map (identity-mapped), non networked, PC operating system for recreational programming.
I wish there was a way to simply ask Terry if he'd have a problem with someone adding networking support. Does anyone know if he responds to email?
Under many (if not most) jurisdictions it's not possible to put things in the public domain, and saying you do so without providing an actual license is the same as not doing anything (aka "All Rights Reserved", the restrictive default).
Even in the US, the idea of putting things in the public domain (rather than it falling into the public domain) is a bit iffy and AFAIK has never been tested in court.
In French, a piece of work is not "put" in public domain but is said to "fell". It's not something that needs doing, it's something that happen at the right time.
Anyway, I'm probably wrong since I'm not a lawyer :-)