>>/1172/
> The only thing that I seriously prohibit is someone claiming that they made it and then close sourcing it and patenting the technology.
What in Endware do you think is patentable?
> I might show up to court to challenge that, and I wouldn't need lawyers to back me up.
Why, are you a patent lawyer?
> Which clause wouldn't be enforceable?
> Which clauses do you object to?
If you want your software to be usable by everyone, say that, and just that. If you want your software to be usable everywhere, say that, and just that. By trying to create all of these silly, specific, pseudo-exhaustive lists, you open yourself up to the argument that if you left something out, it was intentional. For example:
> This program may be used by any living human being, any person, any corporation, any company, and by any sentient individual
You list corporation AND company. Gotta be thorough! But you left out partnerships. And sole proprietorships. If you went to the trouble of listing both corporation AND company, in addition to just saying "everyone", but you left out other business types, was there a reason for that?
Also, "sentient individual". Philosophers can't agree on what sentience is. Is there even a legal definition? And you only consider sentient individuals. What about sentient group-consciousnesses? Why wouldn't a "sentient individual" be considered part of "everyone"?
> This program may be used by any citizen or resident of any country, and by any human being without citizenship or residency.
Redundant garbage. Why not "This program may be used by anyone"?
> This program may be used by any civilian, military officer, government agent, private citizen, government official, sovereign, monarch, head of state, dignitary, ambassador, legislator,congressional representative, member of parliament, senator, judicial official, judge, prosecutor, lawyer, noble, commoner, clergy, laity, and generally all classes and ranks of people, persons, and human beings mentioned and those not mentioned.
Again, why not just "everyone"? You mention military officers, but not enlisted personnel and NCOs. Guess they can't use your software. You mention lawyers, but not paralegals. Guess paralegals can't use your software. After all, if you wanted to allow everyone to use your software, you'd have just said "everyone". "Everyone" would have been perfectly clear, until you started with your obnoxious lists. But then you got specific. You're clearly contrasting "laity" with "clergy", but to be "laity", you have to be a lay-member of a religion. I guess those without religious affiliation can't use your software. What if they're believers, but aren't officially enrolled members of a church? Do they get a pass?
> This program may be used in any country, in any geographic location of the planet Earth, in any marine or maritime environment, at sea, sub-sea, in a submarine, underground, in the air, in an airplane, dirigible, blimp, or balloon,
You list all these vehicles, but not a car? Can't I use the software in a car? What about a bus? If I can use it anywhere, why not just say "anywhere"? Once again, your failed attempt at cleverness and exhaustiveness has resulted in nothing but questions as to your omissions.
> Any user of this program is granted the freedom to distribute, publish, and share the code with any neighbor of their choice electronically or by any other method of transmission.
What constitutes a "neighbor"? That's not a term with a defined legal meaning, and to the extent that it has one, it's not what you seem to think it means. I can't share the code with someone in another country? They're not my neighbor. Or do you mean it in a metaphorical sense? Legal documents are probably a bad place for metaphors.
> Any user of this program is granted the freedom to modify and improve the code.
You say modify AND improve, not modify OR improve. I can only modify it if I improve it? What if you think my changes make it worse? Who decides? You? I guess I'm in violation of the license, then.
> Any user of this pro