But anyway, my problem with a license like this is indeed the existence of gray areas. Open source licenses are in some ways clever attempts to make a social contract into a legal obligation. It isn't perfect, but the side effect is that you don't have to take it on faith that people will follow it: people can be sued for violating it, and depending on how that Vizio case goes, it's not just the copyright holders who are eligible.

But that's a two way street. In return, I shouldn't have to take in on faith that my use case is legal according to the copyright license: it should be clear as day with no room for interpretation. If it's not, then my best hope is to simply never get sued. That is not good. Hope is not a strategy here, not for individuals and not for corporate users.

Business/"fair" licenses seem to offer a good compromise, but it's a mirage: the software still has to be treated a bit like toxic waste in Linux packaging, won't be compatible with strong copyleft licenses, and ultimately, presents an uneven playing field for contributors.

There isn't much to be excited about from a hacking PoV.

With projects like these, you're probably already going to be submitting your code under an unconditional CLA, which essentially forfeits your rights as a contributor, then if it's this license, you also are giving the original copyright owner more rights to use your contribution than you even have.

I don't think this is a good or healthy status quo at all.

The only upside of this is that it protects someone's business model from competition. Well good for them.

But making the license look like MIT is just a bit of cosplay, yet another attempt to try to push something as being open source when it's not. This cognitive dissonance can't go unnoticed; it really does trick people if they don't fully think through the consequences. You're better off going with a license that makes no attempt to pass itself off as open source.