Since it's on the public free GitHub hosting, I'm assuming it's under a free software license -- it'd be nice if this was noted somewhere in the tree, or in the source files.
Without a license, this is non-free, and even reading it subjects us to serious legal risk for any code we may write in the future.
You're fear-mongering a bit here. According to the GitHub terms of service "[...] by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories."
It's probably a good idea to have some kind of explicit license associated with this source but you're likely not putting yourself in danger of litigation by viewing and/or forking it.
OK, perhaps that's a bit too far, but the issue remains - it's not explicitly under a license - I'm not trying to cause a thing here, but I'd be much more comfortable when I know it's under a license I can use
It's also not unheard of, FYI, to have a license that lets you view source, but any work derived from it must be under terms similar to it's -- if it's under a license I don't agree with, it'll be subject to those terms.
Regardless, from a purely legal point of view, this does need copyright and license information :)
Again, not causing a stir, or FUD'ing here. I think this is a fantastic move forward, and hugely commendable.
A license file/readme has been added.
Thanks, @jmechner - I thank you for your prompt reply and fix, but it still isn't clear what copyright the code is under - you can license the code separately from the trademarks (such as Prince of Persia), like Firefox or Chrome does.
I do thank you for including some of the most important rights we, as free software users have, but I'd still much prefer to have a hard-and-fast license on this. Two good ones are Expat and GPL - perhaps one of those will be suitable?
I don't want to re-open this ticket, since you did close it, but having a license this is under (perhaps even a CC0 dedication, while still retaining trademark to Unbisoft, without permission to use the trademark) is pretty important.
Let's say I wanted to take the code and adapt it into a screensaver, which looked like POP, but didn't have any trademarks thereof (there's an apple ][ emulator screensaver that works well enough), what license would that derivative work be under?
Again, I think and applaud this gesture of good faith, openness and commitment to letting young programmers understand what it was like to program for older computing platforms.
First of all, thank you for releasing this source code!
Would it be possible for you to select any of the existing Open Source licenses for the code?
The reason the code cannot currently be considered Open Source is you have only explicitly
included the rights to use it in any way (studying it, attempting to run it) and to modify it,
but not explicitly included the rights to distribute it as it is and to distribute modified versions.
Hope you find a good solution and best wishes!