This is not what licenses are for!! They are not statements about the quality of your work or anything similar.
Use standard and well understood licenses e.g. GPL for code and CC for documentation. The world does not need more license fragmentation.
Use standard and well understood licenses e.g. GPL for code and CC for documentation. The world does not need more license fragmentation.
Eg:
You are permitted to use the Program to validate scientific claims
submitted for peer review, under the condition that You keep
modifications to the Program confidential until those claims have
been published.
In this particular case, however, there's very little risk of actual law suits happening. There is some, but the real goal of the license is not to protect anyone's ass in court (except for the obvious "no warranty" part at the end), but to clearly communicate intent. Don't forget that this is something GPL and MIT also do besides their obvious "will likely stand up in court" qualities. In fact I think that communicating intent is the key goal of GPL and MIT, and also the key goal of CRAPL.
From this perspective, IMO the only problem in this license is
By reading this sentence, You have agreed to the terms and
conditions of this License.
Again, this is not how a license work. You can express your intents, ideas and desires in a README file and in many other ways.
The license is nothing more than a contract that provides rights to the recipient under certain conditions. Standing up in court is its real power and only purpose.
That's why we should prefer licenses that stood up in court and have been written by lawyers rather than developers or scientists.
Plenty of contracts aren't even written down. When you buy a loaf of bread at the bakery, you make an oral contract about that transaction.
The idea that contracts, or licenses, need to be written in dull legalese and be pretty much impenetrable to be useful or "valid" or whatever, is absolutely bonkers. Lawyers like you to think that but it's not true. It's an urban legend.
If you need to make sure that you can defend your rights in court, then sure, you're probably going to need some legalese (but even then there's little harm in also including some intent - it's just not very common). Clearly that's not the goal here. No scientist is gonna sue another scientist who asked for support and got angry about not getting any even though the code was CRAPL licensed.
That's a well known fact. And it's besides the point.
> Lawyers like you to think that but it's not true.
Is that a conspiracy theory? Writing long, detailed contracts on a persistent medium is safer: it lowers the risk of he-said-she-said scenarios and ambiguities.
That is meant to save you tons of legal expenses.
> No scientist is gonna sue another scientist
Then there is no need for such license in the first place. Just a readme file.
Incidentally, I've seen people violate the Java "no realtime" clause.
Plus, the usual "no warranty" is strong enough to protect the authors anyways.
You must be fun at parties :)