IAAL but IANAIPL I appreciate you trying to prompt discussion of the issue and how it might be resolved within the legal system, but I think this misses the ma

IAAL but IANAIPL I appreciate you trying to prompt discussion of the issue and how it might be resolved within the legal system, but I think this misses the mark, for a few reasons: (1) As others have pointed out, you've left open a sub licensing loophole, especially because the license does not require as a condition that the sublicensed version retain the notice of your copyright and license. (2) The terms you use are vague. What is "machine learning"? Is it machine learning to use an organic neural network (i.e., for a flesh-and-blood person to train their mind on it)? Why or why not? Do you intend to make it illegal to view the code in an editor with adaptive autocorrect? What about just syntax highlighting? Surely when the editor "learns" your defined types and function prototypes, that could reasonably fall within the definition of "machine learning," couldn't it? (3) Have you considered the interplay of copyright law and contract law here? You call this a license but it's more like a license agreement because you aren't just limiting your grant of copying permissions, you're limiting how it's used by the end user. Such an EULA falls well outside the domain of international copyright law and would be governed by individual jurisdictions' contract law. What constitutes a user's acceptance of your EULA? What jurisdiction governs? Again, I don't practice in the area of IP; my take is only possibly (and if so, only slightly) more informed than the average HN user when it comes to this topic. Hopefully someone like kemitchell will weigh in.