Ha, yes, that's what I thought initially as well. I believe the only valid possibility would be that in claiming to apply the license to the work, ST has actual

Ha, yes, that's what I thought initially as well. I believe the only valid possibility would be that in claiming to apply the license to the work, ST has actually failed to apply the license to the work, so all purported licenses to the work were actually invalid. Similarly if I have a license text which simply says "you may do whatever you want with the work, except that you may not receive, use, or distribute the work under the terms of this license" that's just ... a failed license. The problem is that the ULL is actually not an open source license anyway, and this became apparent when I gave it a closer reading: > The recipient will not take any action that jeopardizes STMicroelectronics and its licensors' proprietary rights This appears to make political lobbying to abolish intellectual property a violation of the terms of the license, putting it in probable violation of the OSI Definition item 5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" > This software or any part thereof, including modifications and/or derivative works of this software, must be used and execute solely and exclusively on or in combination with a microcontroller or microprocessor device manufactured by or for STMicroelectronics. This is a clear violation of the OSI Definition item 10: "License Must Be Technology-Neutral" and item 6: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". So unfortunately you don't get the fun paradox like I initially thought, because the license is clearly not an open source license even without the "no open source" clause.