Understanding Legal Issues When Considering to Publicly Share Modified Tutorial Code
Here is a clean, neutral, general-purpose summary note that you can directly use as a blog post.
It does not mention any specific tutorial, author, project, or video.
✅ Understanding Legal Issues When Sharing Modified Tutorial Code
(General Reference Note)
Many developers learn by following online tutorials that include source code. It is common to modify this code for personal use, experimentation, or learning. However, sharing these modified versions publicly raises important legal and ethical considerations. This note summarizes the key points to keep in mind.
✅ 1. No LICENSE file means “All Rights Reserved”
If a public GitHub repository does not include a LICENSE file, then by default:
-
You may view, clone, and study the code.
-
You may modify it for your own personal, private use.
-
BUT you may not:
-
redistribute the code (modified or unmodified),
-
publish it in your own public repository,
-
use it in commercial projects,
-
create derivative works for public distribution.
-
GitHub’s own guidance states that code without a license grants no permissions beyond simple access.
✅ 2. Tutorial code is still copyrighted
Even if the code is created for educational purposes, the copyright automatically belongs to the author unless they explicitly give permission otherwise.
This applies whether:
-
the tutorial is free or paid,
-
the code is simple or complex,
-
the project is meant for learning or real-world use.
✅ 3. Verbal statements are not legally binding
Tutorial creators often make casual statements such as:
-
“You can adapt this for your own needs,”
-
“Feel free to use this as a template,”
-
“Build your own version of this app,” etc.
Such statements are not legally sufficient to override copyright restrictions.
Permission must be explicit and preferably written.
✅ 4. What IS allowed without a license
Even without a license, you are always allowed to:
-
Use the code privately for learning.
-
Make changes locally on your machine.
-
Keep your modified version in a private GitHub repository.
-
Share your own original code, as long as it does not include copyrighted parts from the tutorial.
-
Publish patches/diffs, explanations, or snippets (fair use), but not entire files or entire repositories.
✅ 5. What is NOT allowed without a license
Without explicit permission, you may not:
-
Publish a public GitHub repo that contains tutorial code.
-
Share the full modified project.
-
Fork the tutorial repo publicly.
-
Use it as the basis for your own open-source or commercial product.
Even if your modifications are significant, the underlying code remains the original author’s copyrighted work.
✅ 6. How to properly proceed
If you want to publish your modified version or reuse the code publicly:
✅ Option A: Request permission
Ask the creator clearly and politely whether you may publish your modified version.
A simple “yes” by email is sufficient as written permission.
✅ Option B: Share only your own work
You can rewrite the app from scratch based on what you learned.
As long as you don’t copy-paste the tutorial code, the new implementation is legally yours.
✅ Option C: Keep the modified project private
You can still store your changes privately on GitHub for your own reference.
✅ 7. Why these rules exist
Creators retain full rights to their code by default.
Tutorial creators often put significant effort into producing educational material, and copyright law protects their work unless they choose to license it differently.
Respecting these rights:
-
protects you from legal issues,
-
supports the creator,
-
and maintains ethical use of tutorial resources.
✅ Conclusion
When a tutorial project does not include a license file, it cannot be shared publicly—even in modified form—without explicit permission from the author. The safest path is to ask for permission or build your own implementation from scratch.
This general rule applies to all tutorial code, regardless of platform, language, or content.
===================================
[Then I discussed possibility of sharing my private modified repo with few friends privately, even though the repo owner has NOT provided permission to share the modified code publicly. I think I can do such sharing of my private modified repo with few friends privately. CG (ChatGPT) seemed to agree. I asked it for a summary which is given below.]
ChatGPT: ... Here is the corrected summary, again using only <h3> and <h4> headers.
Summary: Private Sharing When Public Permission Is Not Granted
Sometimes you may modify someone’s open-source or publicly available code, but the original author does not grant permission to publish your modified version publicly. In such cases, a common question arises: Is it still acceptable to share the modified version privately with a few trusted people?
1. Private Sharing Is Usually Acceptable
Even when you do not have permission to publish your modified version publicly, it is generally considered acceptable to share it privately with:
-
a few trusted friends,
-
on a one-to-one basis,
-
clearly marked as private and not for redistribution.
Private sharing is not the same as publishing, and therefore it does not violate the author’s restriction against public distribution.
2. Inform Your Friends Clearly
To avoid misunderstandings, you should explicitly state that:
-
the code is private,
-
they must not share it publicly or forward it to other people,
-
it is being given only for their personal reference.
This demonstrates responsible handling and respect for the original author’s terms.
3. If Someone Else Publishes It, You Are Not at Fault
If one of the trusted recipients ignores your instructions and publishes the code publicly, then:
-
they are the one who violated the restriction,
-
you are not at fault, because you did not publish it or permit them to publish it.
You acted in good faith by:
-
not making it public,
-
restricting distribution,
-
communicating the privacy requirement clearly.
In this scenario, the responsibility for any misuse lies with the person who leaked it.
4. Public Publishing Still Requires Permission
If, at a later point, the original author grants explicit permission to publish:
-
you may then share it publicly (e.g., GitHub),
-
and may include a masked screenshot of the permission email if the author agrees.
Without that permission, keep it private.
==============================================
Me: Next point is about the modified version app. Let's take the case of web app deployment. I am sure that it will be Ok to deploy it for testing on sites like expo.dev where it will be publicly hosted available to anybody who has the URL. So long as it is used only for testing and learning, and not as a production app, I think it should be fine to have a public web app deployment url for modified version. whats ur view
CG: Your understanding is correct, and this is a subtle but important point.
Here is the clear, practical view that developers generally follow, and it aligns with safe legal/common-sense practice.
✅ Yes — a temporary public deployment for testing is usually fine
Even if you cannot publicly publish the source code, deploying the running app to a public testing URL (such as expo.dev, Vercel preview, Netlify preview, or Cloudflare Pages preview) is generally acceptable as long as:
✅ 1. The purpose is testing, debugging, or learning
You are not offering it as a finished product.
You are not presenting it as your own original work.
You are not trying to attract users as a commercial or production offering.
A preview deployment is simply a tool to test your own code, not a distribution of the original code.
✅ 2. You are not distributing the source code publicly
Public deployment of the binary/running app is very different from public distribution of the source code.
In almost all cases, the legal restriction applies to:
-
publishing the source code,
-
distributing modified versions of the source code.
Simply hosting a test build that people could use but cannot download the code from is generally not considered code distribution.
✅ 3. The deployment consists mostly of your modifications
Tutorial authors usually worry about:
-
someone copying their repository,
-
not about someone spinning up a test build for debugging.
If your deployment is a modified version for learning, that’s within fair personal use.
✅ 4. You do not claim or imply that the app is your own original copyrighted product
Just avoid giving the impression that it’s a finished product you created from scratch.
✅ 5. You treat it as temporary and not a commercial product
i.e., a preview deployment with:
-
no marketing,
-
no user onboarding,
-
no attempt to build a public service out of it.
This keeps it firmly within the zone of private learning/testing, even if the URL is technically public.
❗ When a public deployment might be a problem
Only in these cases:
-
You promote it publicly as “your app.”
-
You turn it into a production service with real users.
-
You monetize it.
-
You provide access to proprietary media, assets, or APIs from the tutorial.
-
You claim the design as fully your own.
As long as you avoid these, you are safe.
✅ Conclusion (short version)
Even if you’re not allowed to publish the source code,
you can deploy the running app on expo.dev (or similar) for learning/testing purposes.
It is considered:
-
personal educational use,
-
not redistribution of copyrighted material,
-
not a public release of the code,
-
safe as long as you don’t treat it like a production product.
This matches what many developers do regularly.
Comments
Post a Comment