No explicit license is not basically public domain. In most jurisdictions it means the default is full copyright, so permission is less clear, not more. The practical effect is usually to increase ambiguity rather than grant freedom.
replyThat's the point: it's a rejection of the premise that you need these sorts of terms. You treat the law as the farce it has turned itself into. If people reject the farce, they can use it. If they support the farce, they can't (well, they can, but they think they can't). In a sense, an anarchist's viral FOSS license.
replyYou are essentially saying that shoplifting is legal because as a civilian you are unlikely to get caught.
replyThis is a terrible take. All it takes is a litigious jerk, and you could get bankrupt. And that jerk will be legally in the right.
I'm not. In saying people who want to share their work should just do so. If your goal is to not have terms, don't have terms. Don't lend credibility to the idea that you need to by default.
replyConsider the war on drugs. Recreational marijuana is still highly illegal everywhere in the US, but there's businesses selling it that operate in plain view. How did we get there? Because people continued to point out how the law delegitimized itself until enforcement has started to become impossible.
You are essentially saying that walking is safe because as a civilian you are unlikely to get robbed.
replyThis is a terrible take. All it takes is an angry mugger, and you could get killed.
Walking is not illegal.
replyThat's why your analogy doesn't work.