Depends what it is and how confidential you'd like it. I'm happy to do it over Neocities comments. Do keep in mind that I'm not barred anywhere, and my knowledge is pretty flimsy.

It's about a little software license I wrote. I'd just like you to look over it and tell me what you think legally speaking. I could do it here, but that would probably be too cumbersome.

But I guess I can link to it if you'd rather discuss it here.

Sure, I could give it a read over

Here it is. I intentionally left out the name field since it's intended for anonymous people. Don't know if that would work though. https://textbin.net/raw/ghsde6foet

It looks fine to me. Just to make sure I've read it right, is it that source code has to adopt this license, but compiled binaries only need to include a copy of the license?

Actually, I want to convey compiled binaries do have to adopt the license. By "reproduce", I'm trying to say that if the source code isn't provided, the license has to be specified somewhere else(not in the source code). Is there a clearer way of expressing this?

Ah, I see. Maybe change "reproduce" to "retain and reproduce" for clarity. Personally, I'd remove the bit about selling software since it seems to go against the purpose of the license, but I also see no harm in leaving it in.

Thanks. Good luck with getting into academia.