That's one of the pitfalls of writing custom licenses. The standard ones, say Apache 2.0, have had a lot of eyes on them and generally make sense and have a cle

That's one of the pitfalls of writing custom licenses. The standard ones, say Apache 2.0, have had a lot of eyes on them and generally make sense and have a clear intent. I'm sure whoever wrote this version has an intent that's not yet clearly and unambiguously reflected in the writing, and so they risk both looking silly but also people avoiding the license due to too much ambiguity and confusion. Why would any user want to take on the liability of this license when it's not clearly understandable?