2 ms·
> Well, yes. "It hasn't been tried in court yet" is not the same as "Precedent says this is explicitly allowed". Please read my comment carefully, without simp
by Tomte 2y ago
> Well, yes. "It hasn't been tried in court yet" is not the same as "Precedent says this is explicitly allowed".
Please read my comment carefully, without simply assuming I must be on AI companies' side. I'm covering two exhaustive, mutually exclusive cases. In both cases I think your license does nothing, compared to a normal MIT license.
> they've already indicated that they know what the outcome is going to be
I agree with you! But even in the case where they are in the wrong, they are already in the wrong with a standard MIT license!
And in the other case: fair use trumps the license text. That's the point of it!
- lelanthran 2y ago> In both cases I think your license does nothing, compared to a normal MIT license. I've read it very carefully, and I'm still of the opinion that an explicit prohibition needs to be tested in court before it can be ignored. IOW, until it is tested, it stays. After it is tested, then your comment about it being superfluous will apply. Right now neither of the two alternatives apply. If someone wants to make a test case out of my little prohibition, they are welcome to.