
MetaMask replaces MIT License, claims ownership of all forks - kauffj
https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/commit/044bc016e37d45720b13e0a73fd9107fe290f0f1#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95a
======
floatingatoll
Note that MetaMask, by operating a public repository on GitHub, has agreed to
grant all GitHub users worldwide the right to fork their public repository on
GitHub, regardless of the terms otherwise stated in their new license.

> _If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant
> each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and
> perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your
> Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub 's functionality (for
> example, through forking)._

(Disclaimer, I am not your lawyer.)

------
joey_loey89
Anyone could just fork from the commit before this and then their fork can
legally stay MIT right? This license change only applies to future updates?

~~~
ronsor
That's correct. They can't remove the MIT from forks—that would be illegal.

------
carlosdp
Wow, knowing the Ethereum community, this is a very quick way to start
developing bad blood between the very open-source liberal community and this
pretty important piece of Web3 infrastructure...

------
bergstromm466
This isn't legal right? What does this mean and are there other examples?

Is it similar to this? [https://www.cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-open-
source-hard...](https://www.cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-open-source-
hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/)

~~~
MaulingMonkey
I am not a lawyer.

There's _generally_ nothing stopping a copyright holder from ceasing their
distribution under an old license, and starting distribution with a new one.
However, detaro linked [https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/issues/9285](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/issues/9285) which brings up that this new license probably violates
the license terms of it's GPLv3 dependencies.

Additionally, if they've accepted any pull requests without requiring a
contributor agreement assigning copyright to them, they might be trying to
relicense code they don't have exclusive copyright over - which AFAIK would
make removing the MIT license a violation of said MIT license in that context.
(They don't need a license to grant themselves the right to do what they want
with their own code, but doing what they want with other people's code is
another story.)

Additionally, it's not automatically retroactive - if you've got a copy of the
old software (trivial via git) you can presumably still hard fork under the
original MIT license terms - it contains no privisos for force-updating the
license for anyone who has a copy.

~~~
captainmuon
Also technically I guess (IANAL) you might have to prove that you obtained the
source code prior to the license change. We like to say code itself is
licensed such and such, but in reality code is licensed _to_ somebody. If you
just place the code somewhere for a month with a license next to it and take
it down again, and somebody later comes and wants to get those terms, it's
probably too late.

OTOH please correct me if I'm wrong. Law contains many unintuitive things like
contracts by handshake and so on :-)

~~~
pwdisswordfish0
Whatever hypothetical you're posing now is too far removed from this situation
and too obscure to spend energy working it out here. It's best to take a page
from the Supreme Court and consider what's relevant to the facts as they
actually exist for this situation and avoid unnecessarily burdening ourselves
with imagining counterfactuals.

The code was published under a public license, it has been available long
enough to garner thousands of commits from over 192 "contributors" (albeit
some of whom work for MetaMask), and it has over 1.5k forks. Also, there is no
contract.

------
hirundo
> To ensure the longevity of the services we have been providing to the world,
> we feel that it is time that we establish some defensibility for our work
> from large commercial forks.

If you read that as "for our _future_ work" it's just an ordinary license
change. I suggest they add that clarification.

------
detaro
also: [https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/issues/9285](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/issues/9285)

------
slaymaker1907
There is some interesting discussion in an open PR reverting this
“[https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/pull/9286“](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/pull/9286“). It sounds like they may have broken the copyright on
code by outside contributors.

~~~
floatingatoll
FYI, wrapping URLs in anything other than whitespace can break HN
hyperlinking. The corrected link is [https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/pull/9286](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/9286)
for anyone who got 404s at above.

------
pwinnski
Good luck with that.

------
jameshilliard
There's still issues preventing this re-licensing from being valid.
[https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/issues/9292](https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-
extension/issues/9292)

------
goldenkey
Stallman goes brrrrrrr.....

