Discferret Broken?

I haven't read the whole thing, just snippets jgevaryahu posted here. But, based on those snippets (and assuming they're accurate, of course), I think you're overstating the case. For example... ...no, you can't use "the Technology" to make competing products. jgevaryahu didn't post enough for me to be sure what "the Technology"

means - and I would check if I cared - but I would expect it to refer to KryoFlux's work and nothing more, in which case this strikes me as eminently reasonable. In the stuff jgevaryahu posted, most the restrictions cited are of this nature. I do see one glaring exception, that being 3.d(ii); if I were doing data preservation any such clause in the license for a tool would completely eliminate that tool from consideration for me. Actually, if I really cared, I'd look into the possibility that their idea of what constitutes a derivative work disagrees with applicable copyright law, which might end up leading to simply ignoring that clause (I'm not sure whether a license gets to redefine well-estbalished technical terms like "derivative work"). On the other hand, the potential hassle factor of dealing with an infringement suit also might lead me to drop the option even then.

It most certainly would cause me to include them out of anything I might do as an individual. Closed file formats - and this is an even more egregious form of "closed" than most - are nonstarters for me.