[License-review] License Review Submission: Irrevocable MIT License (MIT-I)

[McCoy Smith]

Making a license irrevocable is fine, and many OSI licenses do that (for 
example, Apache 2.0)

Making a license apply retroactively to prior versions of software is 
potentially problematic, as if that software was previously licensed 
under different terms, you can not revoke those terms as to recipients 
who received it under the different terms. If that is not the intent, 
then the "and all previous versions" is surplusage; you could just as 
easily say "this Software" and achieve the same result.

Since the license already says it is irrevocable, saying the copyright 
holders "many not revoke" is surplusage.

The statement that the "copyright holder(s) may not ... modify ... this 
version of the Software" violates OSD 3. I'm not sure that's what is 
intended here, but that's what the text says. If what is intended is 
that the terms of the license may not be modified, that's OK and there 
are other licenses (like GPL) that don't allow that.

The statement that the "copyright holder(s) may not ... relicense this 
version of the Software" is a bit ambiguous (does that mean no 
sublicense right? that's in, e.g., GPL; does that mean no licensing 
under different terms? the copyleft licenses have that feature.

The statement that the Software will remain under the terms of the 
license forever is probably equivalent to a perpetual license, although 
I think it may be problematic in circumstances where the license is 
found inoperative or invalid or something like that. So this, at best, 
seems like a very bad idea. If you want a copyleft effect, there are 
better drafted license terms that achieve that.

As an aside, it only says "this version" so I'd interpret it as only 
apply to the code as received, not the code as modified. I don't see the 
value of a commitment like that (except to bind the original author).

On 8/14/2025 10:43 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 7/31/25 07:48, Jean-Sebastien Carle wrote:
>> 1. Irrevocability Clause:
>> "The rights and permissions granted under this license for this 
>> version (and all previous versions) of the Software are perpetual, 
>> non-exclusive, and irrevocable. The copyright holder(s) may not 
>> revoke, modify, or relicense this version of the Software or any 
>> previous version released under these terms. This version of the 
>> Software will remain under the terms of this license forever."
>
> Attorneys, is this something that a license can actually do?  It 
> doesn't seem like something that a license can compel.
>