[goodpoint]

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.

[skrebbel]

This has explicit usage limitations that matter in science land, which is very much the kind of thing that belongs in a license.

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.

Moreover, sure, lots of the license is text that isn't common in legal documents, but there's no rule that says legal text can't be quirky, funny or superfluous. It's just most practical to keep it dry.

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.

This line makes me sad because it makes a mockery of what's otherwise a pretty decent piece of communication. Obviously nobody can agree to anything just by reading a sentence in it. It should say that by using the source code in any way, you must agree to the license.

[goodpoint]

> clearly communicate intent

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.

[skrebbel]

I strongly disagree. Contracts very much primarily communicate intent, ideally in such a way that they also stand up in court. People regularly argue over details in contracts, people regularly look up things in contracts, also when there is no court to be seen and no intention anywhere to go to court. The vast vast vast majority of contracts never make it to court.

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.

[goodpoint]

> Plenty of contracts aren't even written down.

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.

[aqfamnzc]

By existing, you have agreed to the terms and conditions.

[npteljes]

I agree. There's a lot of confusion surrounding even the most established ones, so there's no need to further muddy the situation with newer licenses. In my opinion a "fun" license, with its untested legal ambiguity, restricts usage more than a well established license with a similar level of freedoms.

[jll29]

For instance, the Java license explicitly forbids the use in/for real-time critical systems, and such limitations are good to stress in a license so that they may reach legal force, also to protect the author(s).

Incidentally, I've seen people violate the Java "no realtime" clause.

[jerven]

Used to, OpenJDK is licensened under GPLv2 with the classpath excemption that allows this for years. If not running an OpenJDK build it depends on your vendor license.

[goodpoint]

And it makes the license non-opensource.

Plus, the usual "no warranty" is strong enough to protect the authors anyways.

[ur-whale]

> This is not what licenses are for!!

You must be fun at parties :)