[Avarice] Free software for me, but not for thee

[letstalkaboutaptos]

🐛 Bug

License is incorrect and unenforceable

Aptos has a history of claiming Facebook’s work as their own, and is now seeking to charge a license fee to others: See changes to LICENSE
54418cb

This is a variation on a theme:
#5135
#6382

[letstalkaboutaptos]

Aptos Forked Diem

1. Aptos Forked from Diem (Feb 18, 2022)

• Aptos commit: 50925260829a84d7a07b7f1922fcefc3b8147a2d
• Diem commit: 50925260829a84d7a07b7f1922fcefc3b8147a2d
• Final Diem mainline commit: 50925260829a84d7a07b7f1922fcefc3b8147a2d
• This is the last official snapshot of Diem from Meta/Facebook.

State of Codebase at Fork:

• Total Commits: 10,896
• Merged Pull Requests: ~3,755
• Estimated Lines of Code: ~362,400+
  • Rust: ~306,700 lines
  • Move: ~55,700 lines

---

2. Rename and Rebranding

After the fork, Aptos performed systematic renames and attribution changes. The following timeline of Pull Requests and Commits highlights the chronological "scrubbing" of the Diem identity:

• Mar 3, 2022 - PR #60: Cleanup docs to represent that this isn't diem

  • Explicit effort to remove "Diem" from documentation.

• Mar 4, 2022 - PR #64: rename diem -> aptos

  • Major renaming effort. Discussions note technical challenges in renaming frameworks.

• Mar 7, 2022 - PR #92: rename dir diem-framework to framework

  • Structural changes to hide the Diem framework origin.

• Mar 8, 2022 - PR #100 & PR #101:

  • Updated Cargo.toml descriptions (e.g., description = "Diem" → description = "Aptos").

• Mar 9, 2022 - PR #111: [build-tools] Move /opt/git/diem to /opt/git/aptos-core

  • Updated internal build paths.

• Mar 17, 2022 - Commit b1601d2:

  • [Replace] Replaces "The Diem Core Contributors" with "Aptos" globally.
  • SHA: b1601d23fb157fee4c4932cd093d3809be8094a4

• May 3, 2022 - Commit 05952c2:

  • [rename] rename DIEM/Diem/diem to APTOS/Aptos/aptos
  • SHA: 05952c29775a3f9ea3f9d3d3f26ff4ed981d80b3

• Sep 9, 2022 - Commit 9c19a66:

  • Commit modifying LICENSE file (re-attribution):
  • SHA: 9c19a66675828bacfa7b71e7594ca6d42b8262ac
  • Replaced previous or generic attribution with "Copyright 2022 Aptos"

These commits together show that Aptos retained the full Diem codebase while systematically rebranding and removing attribution.

---

3. Latest License Update: "Innovation-Enabling Source Code License"

• Commit: 54418cb44d0da652bff0167509ff5bac84fb010a

• Restriction: The license explicitly states that no other blockchains can use this code for production or commercial purposes for a period of 4 years.

• Commercial Intent: Aptos has stated plans to charge licensing fees for exceptions, with revenue directed to a protocol fund for APT token buybacks and ecosystem sustainability (Source: Aptos Blog).

• Retroactive Application: This restrictive license applies to the entire codebase, effectively attempting to retroactively re-license the "base" Diem code (originally Apache 2.0) which Aptos does not own.

---

4. Visual Timeline of Fork & Attribution Changes

Diem mainline (last commit)
5092526… Feb 18, 2022
       │
       ▼
Fork into Aptos
5092526… (same SHA)
       │
       ├─ Mar 3, 2022  [PR #60: Cleanup docs / remove Diem mentions]
       │
       ├─ Mar 4, 2022  [PR #64: Rename diem -> aptos]
       │
       ├─ Mar 7, 2022  [PR #92: Rename infrastructure directories]
       │
       ├─ Mar 9, 2022  [PR #111: Update build tool paths]
       │
       ├─ Mar 17, 2022 [b1601d2: Remove Contributors file]
       │
       ├─ May 3, 2022  [05952c2: Global Rename Diem->Aptos]
       │
       ├─ Sep 9, 2022  [9c19a66: License header re-attribution]
       │
       ▼
       │
       └─ Nov 21, 2025 [54418cb: Innovation License (New Restriction)]

[letstalkaboutaptos]

Aptos vs. Protocol X: Hypothethical Judicial Inquiry

Here is a non-exhaustive set of concerns a judge would likely raise during a copyright infringement suit brought by Aptos Labs against a protocol using the full codebase. These are framed as judicial inquiries—the specific "hard questions" a court would ask to determine if the plaintiff (Aptos) has the standing and moral authority to seek relief.

I. Primary Claim: Copyright Infringement via License Termination

The Plaintiff's right to use the underlying Diem code is conditional on strict adherence to the Apache 2.0 License.

• Breach of Condition Precedent (Section 4): The Apache 2.0 License (Section 4) fundamentally requires that any redistribution of the work must retain strictly all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices.
• Evidence of Breach: Forensic evidence (Commit b1601d2) shows the Plaintiff affirmatively deleted the CONTRIBUTORS file and stripped original notices.
• Legal Consequence (Termination): Under copyright law (see Jacobsen v. Katzer), violation of a "condition" of a public license renders the license void. By breaching Section 4, the Plaintiff likely terminated their own license to the Diem codebase.
• Result: The Plaintiff is arguably an infringer of the original Diem copyright. An infringer cannot enforce copyright in a derivative work that unlawfully uses the underlying material (17 U.S.C. § 103(a)).

II. Concerns Regarding Conduct & Equity ("Unclean Hands")

• Active Concealment of Origin: Why did the Plaintiff affirmatively delete the CONTRIBUTORS file and remove the names of the original Diem/Meta authors immediately after the fork?
• Lanham Act § 43(a) (Reverse Passing Off): While the Supreme Court's Dastar ruling limits claims regarding the "origin of ideas," the systematic renaming of "Diem" to "Aptos" in consumer-facing documentation and binaries could constitute "Reverse Passing Off" if it misrepresents the source of tangible goods or services to consumers.
  • Note: Courts may find this claim weakened by Dastar for pure code, but it remains relevant to the "marketing" of the network as a novel invention to investors (potential Unfair Competition).
• Misrepresentation of Authorship: By globally replacing "Diem" with "Aptos" (Commit 05952c2) and rewriting copyright headers to "Copyright Aptos" without significant code changes, the Plaintiff attempted to pass off the work of others as their own.

III. Concerns Regarding Copyright Scope (Section 103 Limits)

Aptos is claiming rights over a "Derivative Work." The Court must strictly limit their rights to only what they added.

• Overbreadth of Claim: The Plaintiff is asserting copyright over the entire repository. However, forensic analysis shows the majority of the code is identical or functionally equivalent to the Diem codebase (Public Domain/Apache 2.0). How can the Court enjoin the Defendant from using the repository when the Plaintiff does not own the foundational "Base"?
• The "Delta" Definition: Has the Plaintiff provided a line-by-line audit distinguishing their novel contributions ("The Delta") from the inherited Diem code ("The Base")? Without this, the Court cannot determine what is actually protected.
• Unlawful Use Forfeiture (17 U.S.C. § 103(a)): If the Plaintiff’s use of the Diem code was unlawful (due to the license violation of stripping attribution), does statutory law prohibit them from claiming any copyright protection in the derivative work that employs that unlawfully used material?
• Functional Infrastructure (Scènes à Faire): Much of the code in question (consensus logic, mempool structure) appears to be functional infrastructure dictated by the requirements of a high-throughput blockchain. Under the Merger Doctrine, if there are only limited ways to write this code, the Plaintiff cannot claim copyright over it.

IV. Concerns Regarding Licensing & Misuse

Aptos is attempting to restrict a codebase that was previously open and which the new contributors took for free from their employer.

• Copyright Misuse (Leveraging): Is the Plaintiff using their copyright in a small fraction of the code (the "Innovation" features) to effectively block access to the large portion of public/open code (the Diem Legacy)? Courts generally view using copyright to control non-copyrighted material as "misuse," which renders the copyright unenforceable.
• Retroactive Revocation: The Plaintiff released the code under Apache 2.0 from 2022 to 2025. Apache 2.0 grants are "irrevocable." How can the Plaintiff now assert a restrictive "Innovation License" over code that was already irrevocably granted to the public?
• Inextricable Commingling: The Plaintiff argues the new restricted code is "inextricably mixed" with the old open code. Since the Plaintiff chose to mix them without segregation, why should the burden fall on the Defendant? If the Plaintiff failed to keep their "poison" separate from the "food," they may have abandoned their right to exclude.

V. Procedural & Public Policy Concerns

• Reliance Interests: The Defendant (and the broader industry) relied on the Plaintiff’s public representations that this was an "Open Source" Apache 2.0 project. Is the Plaintiff now estopped (barred) from changing that position to the detriment of those who built upon it?
• The "Bait and Switch": Does the timeline—releasing as open source to gain adoption and developer mindshare, then switching to a restrictive license once network effects are established—constitute an anticompetitive practice that the Court should not reward?
• Judicial Economy: Enforcing this claim would require the Court to adjudicate the authorship of potentially millions of lines of code to separate Diem vs. Aptos. Since the Plaintiff created this confusion by scrubbing the history, the Court may simply rule that the confusion caused by the Plaintiff bars enforcement.

📌 Summary Table of Key Factors Against Enforcement

Factor	Explanation
Provenance	Majority of code comes from Diem/Libra, not Aptos
License Termination	Breach of Apache 2.0 leads to voiding of rights
Unclean hands	Removed original contributor info and rewrote license headers
License mismanagement	Original Apache 2.0 obligations ignored or altered
Blended code	No segregation between inherited and new code
No notice	Existing users were not informed of re-attribution
Insufficient rebranding	Renames do not create new copyright
Latest license update	Cannot retroactively assert rights over inherited code
Prior permissive license	Apache 2.0 allows use, modification, and commercial distribution
Equitable defenses	Courts may deny enforcement based on fairness principles

---

VI. Current Legal Environment (USA, 2025)

U.S. courts in 2025 are increasingly skeptical of broad software copyright and patent claims.

• Software patents covering generic or functional ideas are often invalidated (e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec).
• Functional software, APIs, and infrastructure-level code are frequently treated as non-copyrightable.
• Courts and commentators are pushing back against copyright/patent "bullying" or lawfare by large tech companies.
• Prior permissive licenses (Apache 2.0, MIT) still protect reuse and commercial use, limiting enforceability of post-fork license changes.
• Mixed-authorship repositories with no clear segregation of original and inherited code weaken enforcement claims.
• Removal of contributor attribution and license tampering is considered "unclean hands", reducing the likelihood of judicial relief.
• Fair-use, interoperability, and public-interest arguments are increasingly favored in software disputes.
• Enforcement against entire codebases that include reused open-source components is expensive, uncertain, and unlikely to succeed.

[letstalkaboutaptos]

@fluffypony They could use your help here again.