The omission is inconsequential. One does not require intellectual property rights to abuse &quot;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.&quot;<p>A service allowing consumers to &quot;find and fix known vulnerabilities in Node.js dependencies&quot; 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&#x27;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&#x27;s consent due to its inclusion as part of the transferable license statement.