[shakna]

> The license clearly and explicitly grants the ability to make a mess of packaging the work.

The license _may_, however, moral rights to the software also include "right to the integrity of the work", where badly packaging the software may actually infringe.

That right isn't something the MIT license can simply override or ignore. There are plenty of rights that a person _can't_ surrender, based on the originating jurisdiction.

For example, the oft-criticised Unlicense includes this statement:

> In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the software to the public domain.

However, in many jurisdictions that recognise copyright laws, the author has an inherit and implicit right to copyright, but simultaneously do _not_ have the right to surrender it, and cannot dedicate anything into the public domain, making said license completely irrelevant.

Just because the legal document says something, doesn't mean it can actually do something.

[wvenable]

Providing a license is not surrendering copyright -- in fact, just the opposite. In order for anyone to make a copy of a copyrighted work they must have a license to do so. The license sets the terms of that copying. This is the fundamental aspect all copyright.

I don't see how if the license says that one can modify and repackage the work without limitation or restriction that the person providing that license can argue for any violation of the integrity of work. If they can they copyleft is effectively dead.