Yes, but these licenses have far more protection for me than regular licenses.
I'm working with a lawyer to ensure that these licenses are void if the user expects me to have any duty, like the Bitcoin lawsuits ([1], see comments at [2]) or the EU's upcoming Cybersecurity Resilience Act that might require me to be audited or worse [3], which I can't afford. (I do want an audit when I can afford it, though.)
1. (at least some of) the links from the FAQ entries to license texts appear to be broken due (presumably) to a change/transformation from `<filename>.md` to directory path.
2. It might be helpful to more clearly identify the text differences between the multiple licenses and/or at least the FAQs to enable skipping duplicated commentary when reading.
1. Yes, sorry. In the process of fixing those as the licenses are finalized.
2. That's a good idea, but I can't do that in the actual license documents since I need to keep the actual licenses clean from non-license materials. Do you have any good ideas how to do that?
I'm working with a lawyer to ensure that these licenses are void if the user expects me to have any duty, like the Bitcoin lawsuits ([1], see comments at [2]) or the EU's upcoming Cybersecurity Resilience Act that might require me to be audited or worse [3], which I can't afford. (I do want an audit when I can afford it, though.)
[1]: https://laanwj.github.io/2023/02/06/regrets.html
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34684715
[3]: https://blog.opensource.org/what-is-the-cyber-resilience-act...