Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MetaMask replaces MIT License, claims ownership of all forks

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: MetaMask replaces MIT License, claims ownership of all forks

#11

Post by smcphile »

captainmuon wrote: post #7
MaulingMonkey wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 requiri…

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…

> Also technically I guess (IANAL) you might have to prove that you obtained the source code prior to the license change.

I don't see why. If some code is made available under an MIT license and then the copyright owner switches to a new license, nothing stops others from continuing to use the original code under the original license.

Of course to do this you would have to know the code exists, but you could learn about its existence after the license change from someone other than the copyright owner.

Re: MetaMask replaces MIT License, claims ownership of all forks

#13

Post by 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.

Re: MetaMask replaces MIT License, claims ownership of all forks

#14

Post by 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.)

Re: MetaMask replaces MIT License, claims ownership of all forks

#17

Post by floatingatoll »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #15

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

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