Programmers share code on the site JSFiddle http://jsfiddle.net, the website section called Licence states:

All code posted to the site belongs to the poster and no license is enforced.

jsFiddle are not responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any kind during the usage of provided code.

I (not a lawyer) can see two interpretations of this wording ...

  • Any claim to rights is up to the 'poster' to pursue, jsFiddle will not pursue licencing issues. or
  • The poster forfeits rights by posting on jsFiddle and will not make claims

On the website there are private and public repositories, the public repositories are intended for sharing and (probably slightly more important) on the site there doesn't seem any way 'posters' can specify a licence.

So I'm wondering whether the above licence and indication of intent to openly share code allow for the code to be commercially used by others?

  • I haven't found a way to contact jsFiddle for clarification Jan 6, 2016 at 16:36
  • Licensing can be tricky. Just because it is on there doesn't mean that it matches the sites licensing. For example if I uploaded your work it would still be the same license you intended.
    – Terry
    Jan 7, 2016 at 11:23
  • @StephanLuis: doc.jsfiddle.net/meta/channels.html lists several ways Jan 7, 2016 at 13:58
  • @Terry You're correct, that's the situation where the copyright is clear.. owned by someone else. I'm also concerned about the copyright status of original code posted on jsFiddle. Jan 7, 2016 at 15:36
  • 1
    The jsFiddle group page is groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/jsfiddle-users Jan 7, 2016 at 16:00

1 Answer 1


The default "license" in this case would probably be All Rights Reserved.

When you say no license is enforced in your quote, general copyright laws would likely apply. I haven't looked into JSFiddle, but here's something in the Github Help Center:

You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. This might not be what you intend.

Even if this is what you intend, if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, you have accepted the Terms of Service which do allow other GitHub users some rights. Specifically, you allow others to view and fork your repository within the GitHub site.

Generally, additional rights are provided to the site to hold your code and repository, as well as basic user operations within the app.

jsFiddle are not responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any kind during the usage of provided code.

This is mostly a disclaimer of liability. JSFiddle is just trying to say that they will not act on behalf of you in relation to copyright claims or the like. They don't want to be held accountable for anything that arises.

The impression that I get is that you can have an All Rights Reserved repository on JSFiddle, while acknowledging that they will not be responsible for anything to do with copyright or licensing, nor will they act on anyone's behalf.

In response to your bounty message, I'm not sure how much authoritative you can get after your quote. That quote seems to be from the jsfiddle.net site itself.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .