[0x4a6f6579]

The omission is inconsequential. One does not require intellectual property rights to abuse "a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty free and transferable licence (with right to sub-license) to, including without limitation, use, display and transmit the content and source code."

A service allowing consumers to "find and fix known vulnerabilities in Node.js dependencies" certainly does not require a transferable license (especially one with the right to sub-license). A transferable license allows the licensee to freely assign the license to any other party without the licensor's consent. The wording includes the right to sub-license, allowing the same license to be granted to another third-party -- again, without the need to obtain the licensor's consent due to its inclusion as part of the transferable license statement.

[guypod]

Fair point, language is probably too broad (was just in the lawyers template...). Note it is "limited to the extent needed to provide the service", but can be reduced further, as we (Snyk) never had any intent to do anything more than what's needed for the service. We'll remedy that in the next couple of weeks.