I haven't read the case, only the headnote that @S'mon posted.So if I am reading this correctly that if I was to offer you (S'mon) perpetual terms but among those terms was a termination clause. The court held that the termination clause still applies?
But I think a basic principle is that each provision of the instrument will be interpreted so as to ensure that the whole thing is coherent.
So imagine a 3-clause licence:
1. I grant you a perpetual licence to use [my specified IP in certain specified ways].
2. The use permitted by section 1 is subject to [various conditions].
3. This licence will terminate in 7 days if any of the conditions set out in section 2 is breached, unless I give express notice to you within 7 days of such breach that the licence is to remain on foot despite the breach.
2. The use permitted by section 1 is subject to [various conditions].
3. This licence will terminate in 7 days if any of the conditions set out in section 2 is breached, unless I give express notice to you within 7 days of such breach that the licence is to remain on foot despite the breach.
It's clear that "perpetual" in this licence doesn't mean "irrevocable", because clause 3 sets out circumstances in which the licence can be revoked (namely, if you breach and I don't give you notice that the licence is to remain on foot).
Whether section 3 of my hypothetical licence sets out the only conditions in which revocation is possible is a further matter of construction. Without more context, I don't think it's possible to say.
I don't know. I'm not an expert in Australian copyright licensing law. I will go so far as to say the situation is likely to be similar to the UK, meaning that there probably is no such requirement, but everything else being equal its better to be express than to rely on context.Also @pemerton what is the key case in an Australian jurisdiction that references the need to include the use of irrevocable in the license to achieve the goals of the licenses like the GPL and OGL?