Probably be purchased by Unity soon to avoid competition.
I know the license says you have to be MIT - in perpetuity. That being said the author is the author and can do whatever, right? Especially if we're talking about Riccitello here, he has a past to consider.
You can make any future work you write a different license. So in this hypothetical unity could basically continue with closed source fork.
For a project with a single copyright owner/entity (or a group in agreement), yeah. You can't change the license of existing released versions or prevent people from sharing it in accordance with MIT. But you can publish a new release and drop the MIT license or even go closed source. The MIT license is just a grant of permissions for people who are not the copyright holders. The owner doesn't have to agree to MIT in order to use their own software.
Godot would be a weird example though where I hope a lawyer would chime in. The first part of the MIT license establishes the copyright holders. The Godot license says:
Copyright (c) 2014-2022 Godot Engine contributors (cf. AUTHORS.md).
And the AUTHORS.md file has like a hundred names in it. If some company could acquire the entire rights to Godot then they could update the license. But I don't know how possible that is here.
It kind of reminds me of when id software had the reverse situation. They wanted to open-source Doom 3, but some shadow technique they were using was based on a Creative Labs patent. So they had to rewrite a small amount of code before publishing the source.
> Copyright (c) 2014-2022 Godot Engine contributors (cf. AUTHORS.md).
That doesn't strictly make sense. "cf" means "compare". It implies that Godot Engine contributors are different from what is listed in AUTHORS.md.
I know that everyone mistakes "cf" for "see also", so I figured it out. But I really was confused at first.