I am not a lawyer. If you have real questions on this, talk to a lawyer.
I am working under the assumption that the individual who has the github repo is the sole copyright owner (be it creator, or assignee) of the code.
Code is licensed as it is published. This is part of contract law. You have a license to it and that doesn't change. It has been ruled that that all retroactive copyright transfers and licenses are invalid.
the court found that retroactive transfers violate the basic principles of tort and contract law, and undermine the policies embodied by the Copyright Act.
The license that you have for the code you have you have released to you under that license and may continue to use it under those license terms. The MIT license has no revocation clause as part of it.
The owner of the source, however, can always change licenses going forward, even if it was under a permissive license before. The license is about how the owner allows others to use code he or she has copyrighted. The licenses does not restrict how one uses their own copyrights.
Also look at related