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

[Pamela Chestek]

I hadn't noticed before that the grant in the MIT license isn't 
perpetual or irrevocable. I agree with McCoy that virtually everything 
in the new paragraph is surplusage, circular or just a bad idea; so all 
that really would need to be done is insert the words "perpetual" and 
"irrevocable" in the grant language. But is there really a problem with 
people trying to prevent users who have obtained the software with the 
MIT license from continuing to use it? Is this a problem that needs solving?

I believe the standard MIT license is terminable, since it doesn't say 
it's irrevocable. But there's a practical problem with that. You have to 
tell the other party to the contract (the user) that their license has 
been terminated and prove that they were aware of that information. Is 
that even practically possible? Putting a notice in a repo or website 
doesn't mean someone saw it, they could have just downloaded the 
software once and never looked at the original site for the software 
ever again. Has this been happening?

I am also troubled by "The Software may not be removed from public 
repositories solely for the purpose of limiting access to versions 
previously distributed under this license." I don't think it's a good 
idea to start - what if it's taken down for security reasons? And you're 
forcing someone to spend the resources to maintain a copy of software in 
perpetuity, even if it's well past its useful life. I don't think 
someone should be required to maintain a copy of the software.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

On 8/14/2025 4:04 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org