The #xkcd386 is strong in this one, but I'll bite.
It's true that people use words to describe things, and generally the court will give effect to what you write as long as you have the right to do/request it. But given your writing style in this comment and others, I seriously doubt what you think you wrote is what a court would interpret it as.
There's a reason why people hire lawyers to write legal documents, and even so they sometimes screw up.
By the way, nobody needs to "enforce that MIT in court against your text". At best, people ignore your work because the license terms are unclear and their lawyers advise them not to touch it with a 10 foot pole. At worst, people "steal" your work, and YOU end up going to court to try to convince the judge that what you mean is what you wrote, even though the terms apparently contradict themselves. (because if you don't go to court to sue people violating your copyright, nothing happens unless you have a couple billion revenue in which case you can call up the FBI to help you.)
I'm not saying you can't get it right, but man your attitude is annoying.
In practice (more #xkcd386), for a simple license like MIT, getting the words "right" would basically involve rewriting the whole license. Consider this case - you license your software (let's call it FooBarApp) to a party (let's call them Alice), and Alice doesn't use it to make money whatsoever, which fits the "free" part of your conditions, which means they are eligible for the "MIT license" part. The MIT license allows all licensees to redistribute and sublicense FooBarApp. Alice puts FooBarApp on github with an MIT license. Bob, a commercial company with 100M revenue, downloads FooBarApp and incorporates it into their own commercial solutions offering. From Bob's perspective, all they know is that they obtained a valid MIT license from Alice, who does have the right to sublicense FooBarApp due to the MIT license from you.
To avoid this situation, you'd have to modify the "MIT license" wording and strike out "sublicense", and probably have to add another condition stipulating that the licensee must not use it to $DO_MONEY_THINGS. You can do it two ways -- one is to edit the text, the other is to wrap the standard MIT license with big lines of text saying "I KNOW I AM INCLUDING THE MIT LICENSE HERE BUT THIS IS NOT REALLY WHAT I MEAN".
At this stage my personal opinion is that you'd be better off writing a new license from scratch.
And no, I'm not a lawyer, otherwise I'd known better than to offer advice to random people online when I could charge them a couple grand.
It's true that people use words to describe things, and generally the court will give effect to what you write as long as you have the right to do/request it. But given your writing style in this comment and others, I seriously doubt what you think you wrote is what a court would interpret it as.
There's a reason why people hire lawyers to write legal documents, and even so they sometimes screw up.
By the way, nobody needs to "enforce that MIT in court against your text". At best, people ignore your work because the license terms are unclear and their lawyers advise them not to touch it with a 10 foot pole. At worst, people "steal" your work, and YOU end up going to court to try to convince the judge that what you mean is what you wrote, even though the terms apparently contradict themselves. (because if you don't go to court to sue people violating your copyright, nothing happens unless you have a couple billion revenue in which case you can call up the FBI to help you.)
I'm not saying you can't get it right, but man your attitude is annoying.
In practice (more #xkcd386), for a simple license like MIT, getting the words "right" would basically involve rewriting the whole license. Consider this case - you license your software (let's call it FooBarApp) to a party (let's call them Alice), and Alice doesn't use it to make money whatsoever, which fits the "free" part of your conditions, which means they are eligible for the "MIT license" part. The MIT license allows all licensees to redistribute and sublicense FooBarApp. Alice puts FooBarApp on github with an MIT license. Bob, a commercial company with 100M revenue, downloads FooBarApp and incorporates it into their own commercial solutions offering. From Bob's perspective, all they know is that they obtained a valid MIT license from Alice, who does have the right to sublicense FooBarApp due to the MIT license from you.
To avoid this situation, you'd have to modify the "MIT license" wording and strike out "sublicense", and probably have to add another condition stipulating that the licensee must not use it to $DO_MONEY_THINGS. You can do it two ways -- one is to edit the text, the other is to wrap the standard MIT license with big lines of text saying "I KNOW I AM INCLUDING THE MIT LICENSE HERE BUT THIS IS NOT REALLY WHAT I MEAN".
At this stage my personal opinion is that you'd be better off writing a new license from scratch.
And no, I'm not a lawyer, otherwise I'd known better than to offer advice to random people online when I could charge them a couple grand.