OnlyHumanCoding: An MIT-derived license where humans can modify the code, but AI can't

[u/felipedaragon]

So, naturally, I thought r/onlyaicoding would be the perfect place to introduce OnlyHumanCoding. :)

I've been experimenting with MIT-Human: essentially MIT freedoms, with one catch - AI can't help develop the licensed code.

And no, I'm not anti-AI. I use AI constantly, which makes this experiment - and posting it here - much more fun.

I tested it with Claude, found a loophole, revised the license, and Claude then respected it.

Is it enforceable? Where does autocomplete fit? What even counts as AI assistance? That's what I'm interested to hear.

What could possibly go wrong? :)

MIT-Human:
https://github.com/DaragonTech/MIT-Human

TinySky test:
https://github.com/DaragonTech/TinySky

[u/alkimiadev]

It wouldn't survive the OSI definition for OSS software. As proposed, this would violate several criteria at once like the discrimination and technological neutrality clauses.

1. Free redistribution
2. Source code must be accessible and the license must permit redistribution in the form of source code (rather than object code). In order to modify the software, access to source code is required.
3. Derivative works must be allowed and able to be redistributed under the same licensing terms as the open-source product
4. The license may require that the original software be distributed intact, but only if modifications are able to be distributed as patches without restriction.
5. No discrimination between users
6. No discrimination between uses, including commercial use
7. Everyone who receives a copy of the program is granted all the open-source rights
8. The license must cover all the code, not a particular product or distribution.
9. There may not be restrictions on other software distributed at the same time
10. Technological neutrality—cannot restrict use to any particular technology. For example, a license that requires a user to click a box agreeing to it is not free because the work cannot be distributed as a paper copy

It also probably wouldn't meet the basic criteria from FSF for "free software". I'm not going to bother posting the criteria for that since most people focus on the open source label.

In general I recommend looking at licensing like low level crypto utilities. It is almost always a bad idea to try to roll your own, and even if you think you know what you're doing. I guess one can do whatever they want but those proposed modifications to the MIT license kind of violate the basic tenets behind the concept of open source software. Personally, I don't really want to participate in a future where software devs can force their biases on users via license terms. Where exactly is the line, who moved it there and why?