So, I’m finding the text re: Revoking the prior license to be confusing.
The problem that I’m having is the appearance of a factual declaration in a license agreement. Then I have two problems. First, the contents of the license are conditional. Would that, bizarrely, make the de-authorization a fact only for those who accepted the new license? Second, the statement is not of the form of an agreeable proposition. For example, “the licensee agrees to cease use of prior versions” is an agreeable proposition. (“Agreeable” meaning can make an agreement over. Not, “pleasant”.)
My best “logical” sense is that a ”de-authorization” of one of the license versions would have to be done directly by the License issuer as an independent statement.
Absent a clear definition of “authorized” and absent clearly defined steps to change the “authorization” state of a license version, the word appears vacuous. Can such a momentous consequence (the prevention of the use of earlier versions) be tied to it?
To be clear, what is being attempted seems clear. And lots of folks, myself included, pointed to “authorized” as a possible problem point. I’m just having a problem with the “how it is being done”-ness.
TomB