[Buttons840]

Good question.

If a license says "you may use this, you are prohibited from using this", and I use it, did I break the license?

[ethin]

If memory serves, the license is the ultimate source of truth on what is allowed or not. You cannot add some section that isn't in the text of the license (at least in the US and other countries that use similar legal systems) on some website and expect it to hold up in court because the license doesn't include that text. I know of a few other bigger-name projects that try to pull these kinds of stunts because they don't believe anyone is going to actually read the text of the license.

[HenrikB]

The copyright holder can set whatever license they want, including writing their own.

In this case, I'd interpret it as they made up a new licence based on MIT, but their addendum makes it non-MIT, but something else. I agree with what others said; this "new" license has internal conflicts.

[kaliqt]

The license is clearly defined. It would be misleading, possibly fraudulent for them to then override the license elsewhere.

Simply, it's MIT licensed. If they want to change that, they have to remove that license file OR clearly update it to be a modified version of MIT.

[IshKebab]

I think if they took you to court for cloning someone's voice without permission they would probably lose because this conflict makes the terms unclear.

[Buttons840]

An unclear license would default back to full copyright protection I would think.

[yencabulator]

Not necessarily. I believe many courts have a principle that an unclear agreement is read in favor of the party that did not write the agreement.