[theamk]

> Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable,

For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.

[Cpoll]

> this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.

I was going to argue, but they do explicitly say "revocable." Has such a license revocation ever been upheld in court?

[kstrauser]

My understanding is it’s the opposite: that license is the only thing granting you usage rights. In the absence of a contract, or words in the license to the contrary, they could revoke those rights on a whim. It’s not so much that you have a default right to use their proprietary software and they may issue something that revokes it. It’s that you have no right to use their software except their continued good will.

The GPL says:

> All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.

That’s a huge difference.