I see that others have posted about this before, but because this package is a dependency of such common libraries as Jest, this is a legitimate issue for many organizations. However, the previous issues did not provide any legal argument, so if you'll indulge me.
It's not global. It doesn't make sense outside of a commonwealth ecosystem, is explicitly illegal in some places (Germany), and of unclear legality in others (Australia)
It's inconsistent. Some of the warranty terms cannot, logically, co-exist, given the current legal ecosystem, as written, with the licensing terms.
Its applicability is unpredictable The license is short, clearly expressing intent, at the cost of not carefully addressing common license, copy-right and warranty issues. It leaves a lot of leeway interpretation - meaning that, in the US, it will take a few trials before you can reliably know when the license is applicable, and how.
Personally, I think of the license as having been written in human-readable pseudo-code, without having been properly compiled yet to a given set of legal systems.
If you seek to establish broad usability with no restrictions, a license which is based on sound legal theory such as MIT is a far better choice. Dual-licensing with MIT seems to satisfy most lawyers at multinational companies where they lose sleep worrying about this kind of thing.
I see that others have posted about this before, but because this package is a dependency of such common libraries as Jest, this is a legitimate issue for many organizations. However, the previous issues did not provide any legal argument, so if you'll indulge me.
From StackOverflow, regarding the Unlicense:
Open Source Initiative mailing list discussion of the legal shortcomings of the Unlicense
If you seek to establish broad usability with no restrictions, a license which is based on sound legal theory such as MIT is a far better choice. Dual-licensing with MIT seems to satisfy most lawyers at multinational companies where they lose sleep worrying about this kind of thing.
Thanks for reading!