Hacker News Reader

Except that he also releases the license itself into the public domain, so that part would be unenforceable. I want to believe that funny maneuver was intentional!

No. You always retain full copy right to your own works. You can choose to license your work to somebody else on arbitrary terms (like, for instance, the spite license), but that doesn't affect your right and ownership of the software.

But since license terms and in general legal art is granted copyright, does one have the right to use the license for their own projects? That is, what is the license of the license?

See various controversies surrounding provincial law text being under copyright.

Without an explicit license grant, you're not allowed to use copyrighted works for any purpose (modulo fair use). There's no reason to assume a license is licensed according to itself; most licenses aren't.

Without an explicit license grant, you wouldn't be allowed to use the license for any reason.

In this case, it's unencumbered:

> I hereby abandon all rights and claims and release the text of the Spite License into the public domain.

To be protected by copyright, a work most be considered a creative effort. Legal documents, in my experience, are not often considered creative works.