No, not implicitly. You'd need to explicitly assign a transferable right to GitMask so GitMask can transfer it to the repository owner. Accepting the ToS isn't

No, not implicitly. You'd need to explicitly assign a transferable right to GitMask so GitMask can transfer it to the repository owner. Accepting the ToS isn't enough for that. Depending on who you ask you need an actual signature on paper to be 100% in the clear. What's worse: GitMask would need to guarantee that any given PR meets these requirements and expose this status to the repository owner. This would make GitMask liable but they could escalate to the original author -- but that in turn would jeopardise the anonymity guarantees to a degree. Imagine the following scenario: 1. Person A creates application X and publishes it under a non-permissive commercial license. 2. Person A uses GitMask to create a PR to an open source project Y of competitor B and includes source code from application X in the PR. 3. Maintainers of project Y merge the PR without being able to verify the identity of the author and publish the updated version. 4. Person A sues competitor B over the use of the source code from application X in project Y. 5. Competitor B blames GitMask for introducing the infringing code. Now depending on what GitMask has done, this could result in different outcomes. A. The status quo: GitMask provided no guarantees about the legal status of the code and retains no information about the author, so competitor B acted in negligence and is fully liable. B. GitMask does provide guarantees but requires no guarantees from the author, so GitMask is at least partly liable. If GitMask retained any information about the author they can try to sue over violation of the ToS but good luck with that. C. GitMask provides guarantees and requires formal guarantees from the author. GitMask is likely liable but they can hold the author accountable. In this scenario GitMask could demonstrate fraudulent behaviour, bad times for person A. IANAL, TINLA.