What exactly does that part mean? If you're in violation of the license, you cannot correct the violation and be compliant again, but the license will be revoked immediately and there's nothing you can do about it?

It's strange though, they also have

> 8. By copying, installing or otherwise using Python 3.8.3, Licensee agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.

which feels very 90ies-EULA-style. If I download ("copy") an archive that contains Python, I should be bound by that License Agreement? Since there's not severability clause, wouldn't that just void the limitations they've set?

I think in practice, if you corrected a violation you'd just be using the software under a different grant of the license.

What the hell is this? Is this even legal? Aren't these completely different concepts?

Why wouldn't it be legal?

edit: why the downvote? It states explicitly that the license is only granted as long as its requirements (T&Cs) are upheld. Which seem obvious to me, assuming the license does have conditions?

Though I guess it's less obvious to the legal profession as the MPL has a similarly explicit clause (5.1, and 5.2 also terminates the license if you initiate patent infringement litigation against "against any entity", which seems oddly broad)