p.s. quick fix is "stop being lazy and move the single html off cloudflare"

There you go.

> 8. You are responsible for what you do, what you build, and what follows from either.

Of course even better is to simply have no explicit license, especially for something like code. Normal people can assume they can do whatever they'd like (basically, public domain). Lawyers will assume they cannot. The only thing stopping someone is their own belief in their self restrictions. i.e. you can use the thing if and only if you don't believe in my authority on the matter.

I practice law in California. I've written terms of service that many, many people here on HN will have agreed to. I read this line and didn't know what it meant, or what it intended to mean.

That said:

> If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.

There's no good way to validate lawyerdom on public social media like HN. And while the average lawyer probably remembers enough from law school or bar exams to know slightly more about Web terms of service and legal drafting than the average person, there's nothing to stop non-lawyers from reading up and learning. Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog is a great, public source covering cases on ToS and other issues, for example.

The Bar monopolizes representation within legal institutions. Don't cede the law itself to lawyers.

Good. Don't. Because it is exceedingly plain, if concise, English.

It unintentionally demonstrates the limits of individual agency to avoid legal embroilments

That is to say: it doesn’t really matter what this person puts on their website because there is a judge and a sheriff somewhere that can force you to do something that would violate the things you wrote down because the things you wrote are subordinate to jurisdictional law (which is invoked as you point out)

It’s actually pretty poetic when you think about it because the page effectively says nothing because it doesn’t have content that the license applies to

If it’s a art piece intended to show something about licensure all it does is demonstrate the degree to which licensure is predicated on jurisdiction

Had it simply read "You may use this site for any purpose." or "You may use this site." or "You may use this" or "This can be used." it would have the same level actual restriciton in that you obviously aren't allowed to use it to break the law regardless of what it actually says.

And, having typed all that, I realize that there is another restriction in that it presumes that there is a 'you' using it. Things that are not 'you' cannot use it given that it specifically lists 'you' in the referenced parties. "This can be used" would be more permissive.

It should be called bare-termsandconditions or minimal-termsandconditions.

        DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE

        TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

            0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

Eventually, they wound up selling tickets to the match, and donated the proceeds to charity.

Now that's a civilized way to conduct a lawsuit.