> To be sure, using the term "risk" in the context of licensing speaks quite clearly in my mind of interests aligned with commercialization (or the prohibition thereof).
In principle at least, unclear licensing is a legal risk even to non-commercial users. If someone posts stuff on GitHub without any clear license, and I then fork it and makes some modifications as part of some non-commercial hobby project, and then the author of the original project sends a DMCA takedown notice against my non-commercial hobby fork, then legally I would not be in a very strong position. (Of course, in practice, this is unlikely to happen very often, but I suspect something like this probably does on rare occasion.)
> ...and I then fork it and makes some modifications as part of some non-commercial hobby project, and then the author of the original project sends a DMCA takedown notice against my non-commercial hobby fork, then legally I would not be in a very strong position.
In agreement with the pragmatic implications, but I still genuinely struggle to see the point. The financial constraints of legal defense is what strikes me as the killer of non-commercial hobby projects if the hypothetical scenario would arise; with or without appropriate licensing terms, there's really nothing to stop an original project with the financial means and intent from issuing a DMCA takedown and outspending an unfunded project in legal maneuvering. IANAL but at least it sure does feel that way in my limited experience.
IANAL either, but launching totally bogus lawsuits, without a shred of justification, in the hope of overwhelming defendants without the financial resources to defend them, is a legally risky strategy – there is a risk of disbarment, or even criminal prosecution, for lawyers who engage in such behaviour (see the Prenda Law case). A lawyer can get away with making flimsy arguments, but a lawyer who knowingly makes arguments totally ungrounded in law or fact is risking their own career.
In principle at least, unclear licensing is a legal risk even to non-commercial users. If someone posts stuff on GitHub without any clear license, and I then fork it and makes some modifications as part of some non-commercial hobby project, and then the author of the original project sends a DMCA takedown notice against my non-commercial hobby fork, then legally I would not be in a very strong position. (Of course, in practice, this is unlikely to happen very often, but I suspect something like this probably does on rare occasion.)