If it were a conspiracy to fuel business, I'd expect them to say use it then unpick the mess when someone brings a legal action. It's just too vague to be usef

If it were a conspiracy to fuel business, I'd expect them to say use it then unpick the mess when someone brings a legal action. It's just too vague to be useful - legitimate questions such as "does it cover code only or documentation as well?", or "is the author disclaiming any warranties or liability that may be implied by the law?" are left unanswered. There seems little reason to use it over e.g. MIT or FPL-1.0.0, both of which accomplish similar ends and are quite readable without introducing a bunch of uncertainty for both parties. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0