[c0m4r]

At some point, writing these files became a hassle and I felt it was too chaotic, so I gave up on it. Regarding licenses, given that LLMs are using other people's work without their consent anyway, and most of the code produced rn is AI, these licenses are to me really just suggestions. I would treat them as an expression of intent, not a strictly legal document.

[danparsonson]

It would be interesting to hear a lawyer's take on that, as I suspect their opinion might differ from yours...

[c0m4r]

A lawyer's opinion will be directly proportional to their fee and will have little to do with reality, because the law hasn't kept up with what's happening right now. If you don't code with AI, you'll be left behind. Everyone is coding with AI, even in places where it's not immediately obvious, there's AI. You open the refrigerator and AI comes out. I don't know how this will be regulated, I'm not an expert in this field, but for now, it is what it is. The most important thing for me is that I don't derive any financial benefit from this and I give attribution where it is due.

[danparsonson]

No, a lawyers opinion will reflect the law. From a legal standpoint it doesn't matter how you feel about applying a license to your work, it matters what the law says about that. I'm not a lawyer, but my expectation is that the license you choose will bind anyone who chooses to use your software, and in particular will have an effect on companies that wish to use it. That may be fine and exactly what you want, but my point is just that it's not necessarily a whimsical 'statement of intent'.

[mitjam]

I feel that too :) With the license, you are right, and I like your stance of "expressed intent".

[c0m4r]

I've uploaded these prompts to the repo's wiki if anyone else would like to read my broken English.