License Infringement Blast L2

We are a decentralised community with an aversion to direct action and a priority in collective action
Hence, somebody has to start a post directly on Optimism DAO governance forum, aggregate and collect necessary information to get a better perspective.

Here are the tweets that lead to a narrative that Blast infringed on Optimism License

And coindesk article: Blast From the Future: Can You Plagiarize Something Meant to Be Copied?

Copying code is the norm in crypto, because open-source communities see sharing information as positive-sum. The fact that Blast’s team is slapping a copyright on code at all, let alone code it appears it copied, is certainly a way to signal priorities. Because the MIT license is permissionless, Blast was free to use, remix and distribute Optimism’s code so long as its version was also made open-source — and it’s telling that it chose a business license.

Plagiarism battles have happened in the past in crypto, including between rival zk-proof-based projects Matter Labs and Polygon, which claimed the former failed to appropriately attribute the latter when using its open-source code. Similarly, Uniswap, when announcing its upcoming V4 release, stirred controversy when announcing it publish under a slightly-restrictive license, in order to benefit from its intellectual property for longer.

Any chance we can change the balance in favour of Blast or any organization that abuses our collective goodwill to actually be held liable for bad actions?

@lefterisjp we need you more than ever, we know you have some strong opinion on this topic:


I agree completely. It’s not just about Blast. There are other projects offering cooperation for the development of their projects, in whose repositories the code is 1 in 1 with Optimism. And the projects themselves do not position as part of Superchain and do not openly talk about using OP Stack. They just don’t publicize this information and don’t give specific answers.


Found another really great take

1 Like