Great idea, awful awful name - CRAP license, as in 'Community Research/Academic Programming' = CRAP. Why would your make your concept the butt of jokes from the outset?
If I brute-force detection of the first 10000 prime numbers (for some non-CS context) by testing their divisibility from n to 1 it's horribly inefficient and programmers may laugh, but it's accurate, simple, and easily reproducible. Given that a definition of a prime number as divisible only by itself and 1, it may be better to present a brute-force algorithm than to get into a sideline discussion about validating some new-fangled method like the Sieve of Erasthostenes, that upstart.
Science aims at proof rather than efficiency. What matters is the quality of the result, and its reproducibility. If you can get to the same result in a much more timely fashion that's awesome, but that's an engineering achievement rather than a scientific one. I don't think that anyone wants to put out code labeled as CRAP in an attempt to mollify engineers.
And that's to be expected, because of how most scientific code gets written, and what the incentives are. And releasing this code would still be strictly better than not releasing it. We just need to keep the expectations of code quality low, which the CRAPL license does.
Your comment reads to me like you want non-programmers to ritually humiliate themselves by labeling their stuff as CRAP before you will deign to parse it for correctness. Patronizing people is not a good way to get them on-side.
We just need to keep the expectations of code quality low, which the CRAPL license does.
The purpose of the CRAPL is to make code accessible, not to lower expectations. It's not about what you think of the code, it's about whether the code yields correct results.
Not to dredge up a functional vs imperative battle, but I feel FP has a lower impedance mismatch with mathematical concepts generally.