IANAL but assuming that the author making this license was in US, it is totally void. It could lead to a court having to formally state that a software is not a legal entity, which would be interesting, but I think the result is clear that this precise software would not be recognized as one.
You can't transfer ownership of anything to a non-existent entity. My guess would be that such a transfer would be void but it may be possible that a court decides instead that this means a transfer to public domain.
Waving away the responsibility of other people does not work either. You can't claim that your car is responsible of the accidents you drive it into. Likewise, it is unlikely that any court dismisses the responsibility of the first person that will turn this into a malware.
I have like 20 drafts of things I'll never work on because of lack of time but that I think are pretty good ideas. Fraom games to programming tools including network tools, educational applications, etc...
My oldest son (now an adult, and a participant here once in a while) used to take the subway by himself in Taipei at age eight. Once a child has taken a few rides with parents to and from the same stations, and especially if the child is literate (to be expected by that age, for that purpose), there's not much reason for the child to miss out on using the subway.
That's actually an excellent first step. It makes it clear that such a practice is not just cynical marketing but actually fraud. It will clear things a bit for people who ask designs that break after a set time. It will allow engineers and designers to refuse such tasks as illegal.
Yes, I think that it is important to make this point around as docker gains popularity: security is not part of their original design. The problem they apparently wanted to solve initially is the ability for a linux binary to run, whatever its dependencies are, on any system.
It does try to keep containers separated but it does not enforce thatthrough a particularly strong mechanism.