21–30 of 45 posts
How do you propose someone who uses this license to enforce such clauses?
https://www.ddg.fr/actualite/the-european-unions-code-of-pra...
Doesn't actually count as open source. Per the OSD, you cannot restrict the purpose for which people use the software and still be open source. If you want to release your code as actual open source but legally restrict what AI companies do with it, use a copyleft license like the GPL. They could still use it for training, but the product of such training may itself fall under the GPL being a derivative work, and the…
Licenses have no bearing on fair use or where otherwise permitted to be ignored by law.
The AI Act will be fully applicable from 2 August 2026. Providers of GPAI models must respect Text and Data Mining (TDM) opt-outs. 2.1 Legal Basis: Article 53(1)(c) AI Act and Directive (EU) 2019/790 The Copyright Chapter of the Code directly addresses one of the most contentious legal questions in AI governance: the use of copyrighted material in training GPAI models and the risk of infringing outputs. Article 53(1)…
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/7740...
Two relevant bits, dug out from the 175-page whole:
> Although the Act tries to address this by extending obligations to any provider placing a GPAI model on the EU market, the extraterritorial enforcement of these obligations remains highly uncertain due to the territorial nature of copyright law and the practical difficulty of pursuing infringement claims when training occurs under foreign legal standards, such as U.S. fair use.
and:
> Finally, it is important to clarify that the current EU framework provides a closed list of exceptions and does not recognise a general fair use defence. As a result, AI-generated outputs that include protected expression without a valid exception remain unlawful.
It seems to be dated the same month as DDG's analysis, July 2025, so I would expect the MIT Non-AI License that we're discussing here to be much more defensible in the EU than in the U.S. — as long as one studies that full 175-page "Generative AI and Copyright" analysis and ensures that it addresses the salient points necessary to apply and enforce in EU copyright terms. (Queued for my someday-future :)
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.
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...
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.
Then 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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then 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...
I 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.
Interesting perspective. I think you have a right, whats yours is yours to do as you please with - you know? But can I give you another "viewpoint"? I guess it's like, "Wow, my code, my work, what came from my brain, my fingers" - it essentially lives forever, if you think about it - it becomes embedded and compressed inside weights/tokens. Like - part of you is there. I guess it's cool. For me it's just to know that…
I don’t always say AI pilled but You deserve to be recognized beyond the false religion of the singularity.
Literature
Without references and citations—- never mind.
Go read Animal Farm
Key words are:
- permission is [...] granted
- free of charge
- without restriction
- use, copy, …
> may not be used for the purposes of […]
The license contradicts itself.
> Don't we have to ask for permission before feeding someone's years of work into an AI?
That's the point of an OpenSource license, to give permission.
This kind of stuff makes me think very few people really understand what OpenSource is about. The very same people who will fallback to licenses such as the BSL as soon as people/companies will use the permissions that they gave, and then will complain that "no one wants to pay for the thing i did for free and nobody asked for".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t always say AI pilled but You deserve to be recognized beyond the false religion of the singularity.
Hilarious to get downvoted for defending the concept of Literature Without references and citations—- never mind. Go read Animal Farm