4 ms·
If you want to add restrictions to the MIT license, just don't use the MIT license or name it that way. Your change makes it no longer an open or permissive lic
by HumanOstrich 9mo ago
If you want to add restrictions to the MIT license, just don't use the MIT license or name it that way. Your change makes it no longer an open or permissive license so it's bizarre to keep the name. It would be like creating the MIT But-You-Have-To-Pay License.
- dumindunuwan 9mo agoThis is what any AI agent tells
- HumanOstrich 9mo agoYes, I'm a secret AI agent here to try and stop your powerful new licensing idea. /s
- dumindunuwan 9mo agoI meant I asked Gemini before and it told the same
- throwawayqqq11 9mo agoThen lets call this special license something like: No-you-still-dont-have-to-pay-but-any-AI-use-is-restricted-license. 1 This way, everyone knows, its not as free as the MIT license and has absolutely no relation to it. /s Ofcourse you can specialize existing licenses with limited paragraphs and reflect that in their names...
- HumanOstrich 9mo agoI think you're missing the point of the MIT License and its history. If you want a proprietary license, "specializing" the MIT License for that is silly. My grandmother could specialize as a bicycle if I added wheels to her.
- throwawayqqq11 9mo agoYes, the MIT ought to be as broad, free and compatible as possible and is imo targeted to counter copy left licenses but this permissiveness can be also a problem, so specializing it into something like a tagged creative commons license can be a reasonable effort. It depends on the problem/topic of restriction and how narrow or well defined they are.