A few comments. First, given the debate above, I read your license. I stopped when it said "You may not adapt ... the software logic...". Note that the word "software" I quoted here is not capitalized, so I don't even know whether that sentence applies to software in the common legal definition, or in your particular definition. If I take what you write in that sentence literally, I am not allowed to look at your software, notice that it contains a good idea, and then implement that idea (without using any piece of code) elsewhere. This requirement is inane.
But it immediately leads to a much larger scope of the license comment. FOSS licenses are a super complex part of IP law. There have been lots of lawsuits over them; I've sat in meetings with 3 or 4 lawyers discussing their details as part of my job, and I had a colleague fired for not reading a license before using software. Your license clearly has not been gone over by a set of lawyers. It is contradictory, unclear, and messy. I would be insane to use any software encumbered by this license, unless I first have my team of lawyers clarify whether the license is a stumbling block. And for a small script that sets a few variables in setup files (which I can set myself in 15 minutes of work), that level of effort is not a good investment. If you software was the greatest thing ever (like a program which solves the question whether P=NP, or a new operating system that today operates over 90% of all servers in the world), investigating a new license might be feasible. For your purposes, you just need to use a well-established license. Several others above proposed 2-clause BSD or LGPL2, pick something and get on with life.
Next comment: Above you write a few things about the use of software, including whether aliens (in the sense of martians!) can use your software, how it interacts with artificial intelligence, and your fear that free software can be corporatized. Those comments indicate that you are not thinking clearly, and do not understand very much about the real world. For example, IBM buying RedHat does not mean that software that's under the GPL suddenly becomes "gated": You can still download the Linux kernel and the GNU software from their respective web hosts, and as far as we know, the recent restrictions RedHat has put in place do not violate the GPL at all. You seem to be a religious zealot which scant connection to reality, both in terms of your paranoia about aliens and AI, and your nonchalant license.
Along the same lines, it upsets me that you casually insult so many experienced and knowledgeable people. You start that documentation with "FreeBSD officially defaults to Permanently Insecure Mode", with the last three words highlighted. That sentence is intended to be misunderstood; it is a slap in the face of the project, just to get some attention.
Finally, the task itself. You say that your software "hardens" FreeBSD. What does that even mean? It sets lots of variables, which all do various levels of protection. What kind of FreeBSD installation is it intended for: desktop, network server, storage server, embedded? What limitations does it have? All computer security is a tradeoff (usually between convenience and security), what are you trading off? What requirements is your software addressing? What services (client or server) does it impede? You need way more documentation, and that doesn't mean a long list of variables, but of their effects, and the cause for changing them.
In summary, I'm not touching your software with a 10-foot pole. If some space aliens want to use it, that's their choice.
But it immediately leads to a much larger scope of the license comment. FOSS licenses are a super complex part of IP law. There have been lots of lawsuits over them; I've sat in meetings with 3 or 4 lawyers discussing their details as part of my job, and I had a colleague fired for not reading a license before using software. Your license clearly has not been gone over by a set of lawyers. It is contradictory, unclear, and messy. I would be insane to use any software encumbered by this license, unless I first have my team of lawyers clarify whether the license is a stumbling block. And for a small script that sets a few variables in setup files (which I can set myself in 15 minutes of work), that level of effort is not a good investment. If you software was the greatest thing ever (like a program which solves the question whether P=NP, or a new operating system that today operates over 90% of all servers in the world), investigating a new license might be feasible. For your purposes, you just need to use a well-established license. Several others above proposed 2-clause BSD or LGPL2, pick something and get on with life.
Next comment: Above you write a few things about the use of software, including whether aliens (in the sense of martians!) can use your software, how it interacts with artificial intelligence, and your fear that free software can be corporatized. Those comments indicate that you are not thinking clearly, and do not understand very much about the real world. For example, IBM buying RedHat does not mean that software that's under the GPL suddenly becomes "gated": You can still download the Linux kernel and the GNU software from their respective web hosts, and as far as we know, the recent restrictions RedHat has put in place do not violate the GPL at all. You seem to be a religious zealot which scant connection to reality, both in terms of your paranoia about aliens and AI, and your nonchalant license.
Along the same lines, it upsets me that you casually insult so many experienced and knowledgeable people. You start that documentation with "FreeBSD officially defaults to Permanently Insecure Mode", with the last three words highlighted. That sentence is intended to be misunderstood; it is a slap in the face of the project, just to get some attention.
Finally, the task itself. You say that your software "hardens" FreeBSD. What does that even mean? It sets lots of variables, which all do various levels of protection. What kind of FreeBSD installation is it intended for: desktop, network server, storage server, embedded? What limitations does it have? All computer security is a tradeoff (usually between convenience and security), what are you trading off? What requirements is your software addressing? What services (client or server) does it impede? You need way more documentation, and that doesn't mean a long list of variables, but of their effects, and the cause for changing them.
In summary, I'm not touching your software with a 10-foot pole. If some space aliens want to use it, that's their choice.
