The license states that it can be revoked if the licensee if found in
material breach of the terms. Microsoft's lawyers get to
No they don't, the phrase material breach has a very narrow legal
definition, it means that the licensee has to fail to keep an
This is inaccurate. In practice it means simply that the alledged
breacher has failed to live up to their part of the bargain, and there
are any number of ways that they could do that, including simply
forgetting to include in both the source code and with a license
distribution the Microsoft intellectual property rights language
dictated in ss 2.2 of the license.
and the only way to challenge and resolve that if it happens,
would be through the courts.
The only way to breach the terms of the license is to sue Microsoft
which means that you are already in court.
That is really really incorrect, although I can understand why one
would come to that conclusion. One can be in breach for any number of
reasons - always at least as many, and often more, as there are
substantive clauses in the contract/license/agreement.