Shaw Walters says Pump.fun code was not open source

At 3:54 p.m. ET (8:54 p.m. UTC) on Wednesday, Nov. 11, elizaOS founder Shaw Walters retracted his claim that code in the GitHub repository lalalune/pumpfun-source was open source, saying the code was not his and that he lacked authority to publish, license or authorize its use.

The reversal was direct. Walters said he had been wrong. Neither his earlier remarks nor the repository’s license language should be treated as permission to use, copy, fork, modify, build on or distribute the code.

The denial covered three separate acts. He could not publish the files. He could not license them. He could not authorize others to use them. His position was not a narrow correction to repository metadata. It was a warning about what developers could do with the material.

The license gave no rights

Walters singled out the repository’s “Copyright (c) 2026 Shaw” notice and related license language. He said both were “not valid licenses” and granted no rights.

His reasoning was about ownership. The code was not his. A notice naming him could not give him authority to license it.

That distinction removes the basis he provided for treating the files as a sanctioned open-source release, while leaving anyone who copied, modified or redistributed them without a valid grant without permission to proceed.

The repository’s presence on GitHub did not settle the permission question in his telling. Nor did the copyright line. Walters rejected both as a basis for downstream use.

Bytecode was not the same as source code

The clarification follows Walters’s earlier argument that Pump.fun bytecode was publicly accessible. In that discussion, he said he had not obtained the platform’s source code. He described his reverse-engineered work as “original.”

His new post drew a firmer line. He urged users not to distribute Pump.fun code. He also urged them not to try to reverse-engineer it. He said the code was protected by copyright.

The correction therefore reaches beyond a label attached to one GitHub repository, and it cuts against his earlier description of his reverse-engineered work as original.

What remained unresolved

The post does not identify the party that controls the Pump.fun source code. It does not announce a replacement license. It reports no takedown or enforcement action. Nor does it say that public access to bytecode has changed.

His clarification establishes his lack of authority over the repository, while leaving the identity of the actual rights holder and the scope of any future authorization unspecified.

The clarification also does not explain how the files entered a repository carrying his copyright notice. It leaves their provenance outside the account.

What does this change for developers?

Developers should separate files on GitHub from permission to use them. Walters says both the repository’s license and his earlier descriptions lack authority. His warning also reaches reverse-engineering efforts. It does not stop at direct copying.

For teams that had planned to integrate, modify or redistribute the files, the immediate consequence is to suspend reliance on the repository as permission, because any continued use would need authorization from a party able to grant it.

None of Walters’s statements grants a replacement permission. His post narrows what users may rely on, rather than opening a new licensing path.

The practical deadline is immediate: until a valid license or authorization appears, users should treat the repository as unavailable for reuse, distribution or reverse-engineering.