Where are the license's teeth? You can't legally bindingly declare what is or is not a derivative work (for example, I hereby declare your reply to any comment I've written or any other derivative work of mine is a derivative work). So how would the license work in the world?
The GPL works because its teeth are copyright law itself. If you break the terms, you are in violation of copyright. (The AGPL may lack these teeth, being a usage license rather than a pure distribution license, but I that's another matter.) Where are your license's teeth?
The point is that the courts have not decided what is or isn't a derivative work and the law is extremely unclear on the issue. As said in the post, law is not code. It is a social contract. Making it clear that the author does not want to support ai rewrites is hopefully enough to give most people pause.
If you have a better proposal though, I'm all ears -- I'm not attached to this version of the license, and I'd rather have many people attempt to patch the AI cleanroom hole
As a preface, this probably won’t work, since clean room reimplementation doesn’t have a defense as far as I know, and smarter people than me have probably attempted it. But maybe you could use the DMCA in the same way the GPL uses copyright. The license obviously needs to be viral to be effective. It should be encrypted, meant to be decrypted during transfer under the condition that it’s not used for clean room reimplementation. You would have to fork Git since its team would no agree to a closed source blob that prompts for agreement to the license and decrypts if so.
Ya I thought about some kind of ToS thing that required clicking on some kind of license agreement, but I also think that normalizing that will also effectively burn down open source by different means
Where are the license's teeth? You can't legally bindingly declare what is or is not a derivative work (for example, I hereby declare your reply to any comment I've written or any other derivative work of mine is a derivative work). So how would the license work in the world?
The GPL works because its teeth are copyright law itself. If you break the terms, you are in violation of copyright. (The AGPL may lack these teeth, being a usage license rather than a pure distribution license, but I that's another matter.) Where are your license's teeth?
The point is that the courts have not decided what is or isn't a derivative work and the law is extremely unclear on the issue. As said in the post, law is not code. It is a social contract. Making it clear that the author does not want to support ai rewrites is hopefully enough to give most people pause.
If you have a better proposal though, I'm all ears -- I'm not attached to this version of the license, and I'd rather have many people attempt to patch the AI cleanroom hole
As a preface, this probably won’t work, since clean room reimplementation doesn’t have a defense as far as I know, and smarter people than me have probably attempted it. But maybe you could use the DMCA in the same way the GPL uses copyright. The license obviously needs to be viral to be effective. It should be encrypted, meant to be decrypted during transfer under the condition that it’s not used for clean room reimplementation. You would have to fork Git since its team would no agree to a closed source blob that prompts for agreement to the license and decrypts if so.
Ya I thought about some kind of ToS thing that required clicking on some kind of license agreement, but I also think that normalizing that will also effectively burn down open source by different means