From a previous comment I've made: >The MIT license is only applied to code contributions once the code is "at rest" after merge. Permission is then granted fo

From a previous comment I've made: >The MIT license is only applied to code contributions once the code is "at rest" after merge. Permission is then granted for anyone "obtaining a copy" of the software. The repo maintainers claim that they are obtaining a copy of the software, but it looks like this isn't a copy, it's the original. I wonder if the contributors really do have legal recourse. It is my opinion that even in a branching model, the repo maintainers are not obtaining a copy of the licensed code. A git branch is only a pointer to a git object - it's not a full on copy of the source code. So, claiming that a certain develop branch or tag is the original and master is a copy does not hold water. The lerna github repo continues to hold the original code, and their users obtain copies. I strongly believe that the repo maintainers do not hold any rights to sublicense this codebase like they have under the terms of the MIT license, and further, I accuse them of harming copyleft with this sublicense scheme.