I don’t actually know, though. It just doesn’t seem like a safe assumption.
> I wouldn’t assume so. Contracts often specify the opposite, that violation of one term does not void or negate the contract.
I have not seen this language. Typically violating a condition of the contract means you are in breach. Sometimes remedies to certain breaches are enumerated in the contract.
The language about one item not voiding or negating the whole is often in regard to the legality of the contract, something like below (excerpted from an MSA from a client):
> If any term, condition, or provision in this Agreement is found to be invalid, unlawful, or unenforceable to any extent, the parties shall endeavor in good faith to agree to such amendments that will preserve, as far as possible, the intentions expressed in this Agreement. If the parties fail to agree on such an amendment, such invalid term, condition, or provision shall be severed from the remaining terms, conditions and provisions, which shall continue to be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
This is basically saying if one term in the contract is voided, it does not void the whole contract. This is very different from "if you breach one term, the contract is not considered breached".
> 6. This License Agreement will automatically terminate upon a material breach of its terms and conditions.
which I'd have assumed implicit to pretty much every license — or at least every license with conditions — but I guess not if the PSF (or Mozilla which has a similar clause in the MPL) felt the need to specify it explicitly.