[ivanbakel]

>I'm an open source developer - but even if Oracle had violated my license terms and I had indisputable proof of it, I wouldn't take them to court.

Why do you use a license with those terms, then?

Court cases over license violations are not hypothetical. Perhaps your stance is that licenses are frivolous, but there are plenty of people in software who don't share it. And those people, given "indisputable proof" of a significant license violation, would happily take you to court (with FSF support) to force compliance, if necessary.

[michaelt]

No, but situations where it would make sense for me to pursue a court case over a license violation are hypothetical.

Look at Oracle vs Google - Multibillion dollar companies, getting advice from the absolute top legal experts, yet they still can't agree on what is and isn't allowed by law. And getting an answer for that has taken over a decade and an eyewatering amount of money.

Now imagine I'm a Finnish developer living in South Korea who released code under an American-written license, and a Russian company infringed on it.

It's inconceivable that I'd choose to take huge personal risk and expense, sacrificing years of my free time, pursuing litigation over something I was trying to give away for free anyway.

That's not to say people can't do this stuff if they enjoy it - by all means, collect some katanas if that's your idea of fun!

[skulbuny]

Why not just use a license that explicitly says you won't use legal recourse, like the Unlicense or 0BSD, ie. release it to the public domain?

If you use MIT even you are saying "I will litigate you if you do not comply with my demand that you include this license when you use this software."