[sharpneli]

Does this mean that if I have released some MIT licensed, or contributed to a MIT licensed project, I can just call up a big company and tell them to pay me massive amounts of money now or stop using some product I have contributions in immediately?

In reality obviously not. Whenever things like these happen it's interpreted in a way that the big company wins. For you not saying irrevocable doesn't mean it's revocable, but the opposite holds.

[thayne]

Hmmm, I'm sure Hasbro/WOTC is using some MIT licensed software somewhere. What if the developers for some of that software threatened to revoke those licenses and sue WOTC?

[Macha]

They even distribute software in the form of MTG games on steam where one should be able to peruse the list of MIT software used if they comply with the license

[actualwitch]

> Does this mean that if I have released some MIT licensed, or contributed to a MIT licensed project, I can just call up a big company and tell them to pay me massive amounts of money now or stop using some product I have contributions in immediately?

Companies that got burnt on this now require you to give up rights to any contributions you wish to make before merging (or just not use any of code not written by their employees).

[BlueTemplar]

TFA seems to say no, because of some "reliance principle" ?

[jrumbut]

But TFA says that they could prevent the release of new products, so would that mean you can't update your front end (even to fix a bug) until the offending code is removed?

[BlueTemplar]

My very layman's guess is that updates are fine, but new products are not. And courts are able to get technical assistance to find out a company that would try to sneak a new product as an update.