I'll be honest, I don't really get your reply. I was merely saying that adding a clause in the license is pretty pointless. The hypothetical user has already de

I'll be honest, I don't really get your reply. I was merely saying that adding a clause in the license is pretty pointless. The hypothetical user has already decided to break one (or more) law(s), they wouldn't even think twice to break a software license (probably won't even read it). Your comment sounds like a criticism of the project in general rather than the pointlessness of adding a clause to the license. Personally, I think this is pretty novel, better than the 100's of stable-diffusion-as-a-service things that have popped up lately. > while riding on the back of things the owner has no idea how they would actually create if they were asked to do so I mean, everyone builds on top of things they couldn't recreate. If you're a software developer, chances are you couldn't recreate your favorite languages runtime/compiler/whatever, you couldn't recreate your OS, you couldn't recreate the hardware that's running your software. I don't get this criticism at all.