Hej. I am the author. I understand there are a range of simple and well understood licenses, such as the MIT license, which can be used. However, this implies the I agree with and abide by the notion of licensing as it exists today. This is not quite the case. I think property rights are correct, but I think freedom (all contracts must be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence) is correct, and so the situation as it stands, where other people decide the law regarding licensing and we have no choice but to adhere to it, this is unethical.

Be clear here - it is not so much the purpose of licensing which I disagree with (for it fairly closely implements property rights, which I profoundly agree with) but rather the method of implementation - there is a single set of law, decided by others, and we have to obey that law. This violates my idea of freedom.

So with regard to the licensing text on the library, I am attempting to meet the legal needs of users by giving them a carte blanche; they can know their (reasonable, sane) licensing needs will be met, and this I hope simply removes the issue as far as they are concerned, while honouring my ethical views.