This is an amazing thing to do, but I have one concern. My straight reading of the new license file makes me that, assuming I am not related to any of the enti

This is an amazing thing to do, but I have one concern. My straight reading of the new license file makes me that, assuming I am not related to any of the entities listed (or their subsidiaries), then the license I am bound by is the license titled "MIT License". I bring that up, because the MIT License says I need to preserve only the copyright notice (the first line of the file, as per https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf), and "this permission notice". I could see someone arguing that "this permission notice" begins where it says "MIT License". The annoying thing is, I don't have an explicit definition for "permission notice" (for example, I searched on https://dictionary.findlaw.com https://dictionary.findlaw.com but didn't find anything). I could devils-advocate argue that the 'permission notice' starts where it says "MIT License". Taking that argument, if I _really_ wanted to get this to one of the entities listed, I would make a new distribution of the software, consisting of just the copyright statement and MIT License, which I would then distribute to the entity. Yeah, it's definitely a reach, I'm just bringing this up to say that craft people who wanted to may find an opening to exploit here, so some fine-tuning may be warranted! P.S. I'm also a little concerned about replacing "2015-2017" with "2015-present", partially because 'present' isn't a year, and partially because, when development stops (as all things in time eventually become dormant), this could be viewed (especially when looked at in isolation) as an attempt at overreach.