I feel that Kyle E. Mitchell places an immense focus on the U.S. and neglects the situation in other countries to a certain degree. His MIT license explanation

I feel that Kyle E. Mitchell places an immense focus on the U.S. and neglects the situation in other countries to a certain degree. His MIT license explanation was fairly U.S.-centric, citing primarily U.S. sources (e.g. referring to the UCC, books published by U.S. publishers) and kept going on about the debate about contracts and licenses, which probably does not ravage quite that hard in Europe -- while the patent aspect can effectively be ignored over there because software patents don't exist. I get it, Silicon Valley is important. But there's other places, too. I don't feel like they have been given enough attention in this new license. Meanwhile, the Blue Oak license leaves unadressed the problem of European moral rights in copyright[1]. Similarly, the issue of someone simply not reading the terms and just taking the code, similar to EULAs, is left unexplained. The Blue Oak license assumes acceptance and agreement, which may not actually hold up in court and lead to a different result. [1] cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors%27_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors%27_rights for an introduction