> 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.)
Is it similar to this? https://www.cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-open-source-hard...
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 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.
OTOH please correct me if I'm wrong. Law contains many unintuitive things like contracts by handshake and so on :-)
If you read that as "for our future work" it's just an ordinary license change. I suggest they add that clarification.
