[bugfix-66]

Thank you. Could you paste the Humans Only Clause here so we can read it?

Here was my attempt to write a clause prohibiting language model training/inference:

https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa...

  3. Use in source or binary form for the construction or operation
     of predictive software generation systems is prohibited.

How does the Humans Only Clause fix the flaws in my attempt?

The Humans Only Clause adds an explicit licensing fee, and what else?

How is the clause worded?

[oadster]

"Use of the Software by any person to train, teach, prompt, populate, or otherwise further or facilitate any so-called generative artificial intelligence, generative algorithm, generative adversarial network, generative model, or similar or related activity (or to attempt to perform any of the foregoing acts or activity), whether in connection with any so-called machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or similar or related framework, system, or model or otherwise, is strictly prohibited and beyond the limited scope of this license, absent prior payment to licensor of the licensing fee of the amount of ____"

[Imnimo]

This seems to prohibit benign activities like importing the code into an IDE that contains auto-complete.

[bugfix-66]

A necessary evil. You point out a cost. The benefits outweigh that cost.

[slavik81]

That clause appears to violate Item #6 of the OSI's open source definition:

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

It also seems to violate freedom 0 of the FSF's four essential freedoms that define free software:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

I'm not sure this can be used by open source projects if they want to remain open source projects.

[bugfix-66]

Thank you. I see the Humans Only Clause is much more explicit about what is prohibited than the No-AI 3-Clause License, and furthermore directly states a licensing fee.

[googlryas]

That wouldn't license code. That's just license text that happens to be in a string. Not sure why this bugfix site is being used instead of just pastebin with text.

[bugfix-66]

I'm presenting the license text in a creative and unusual way that real hackers might enjoy.

If that confused you, or you consider it "obnoxious", then you are not the target audience.

That's ok. Hacker News is not 100% hackers!

[googlryas]

I think it is more likely you are just baldly shilling your website. Which is a shame, because I think the site isn't a bad idea - I like the minimal interface and the thought you've put into hints for many not-quite-right solutions. I've seen quality links you've posted in the past with more interesting, subtle, and relevant bugs - but this isn't one of them.

[bugfix-66]

I have a different Hacker News account for every one of my projects. It happens that the No-AI 3-Clause License became part of the BUGFIX-66 project. I'm sorry that upsets you, but I'm sure you'll get over it. Happy Thanksgiving.

[NavinF]

It's more obnoxious than creative and unusual