The Purpose paragraph you quoted from https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICEN

The Purpose paragraph you quoted from https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/kickscondor/fraidycat/blob/master/LICENSE... is far from “the only real content”. That paragraph is a statement of intent, not a compression of the details into one sentence. It’s not supposed to be unambiguous. The next seven paragraphs on Acceptance, Copyright, Notices, Excuse, Patent, Reliability, and No Liability are the actual rules of the license. The Blue Oak Model License aims to be closer to the MIT License than to the Unlicense. The Unlicense releases the software into the public domain, which means, for example, that someone who makes a derivative work could release that work under a proprietary license. In contrast, the Notices section of the Blue Oak Model License, just like the third paragraph of the MIT License, requires derivative works to be released under the same license. I would say the Blue Oak Model License uses the idea of “freedom through self-imposed restrictions” more than both the Unlicense and the MIT License. I think the biggest difference between the MIT License and the Blue Oak Model License is that the MIT License doesn’t mention patents, which (some lawyers think) could allow authors of MIT-Licensed software to sue users for violating their patents used by the software. The Blue Oak Model License’s Patent section closes that loophole.