On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:42:59 +0800 Paul Wise wrote:
> Well that is a fun license.
> I think it is attempting to say that the work doesn't qualify to have
> copyright/patent laws applied to it.
> IMO it is way too vague to achieve that and cannot override copyright
> law where copright law disagrees.
> It also constitutes license proliferation.
Moreover, it's incompatible with various Free Software licenses (most
notably the GNU GPL v2, the GNU GPL v3, the GNU LGPL v2.1, the GNU LGPL
v3, ...), it does not (clearly) meet the DFSG (since the meaning of the
term "use" is not explained and could be interpreted to *not* cover
modification and/or distribution).
I agree with Christofer C. Bell that the most reasonable strategy here
is really a (clean-room) reimplementation licensed under sane terms...