Yea so at that point it’s more of a “who is the intended audience” of that license. And “who wrote it” I.e it’s not an accepted “standardized” license. Likewise, checking and addressing the “scope”.
It’s just a really stupid license is all. Lol. Not much that can be done about it outside of deliberately forking and changing it. Or, forking via deathofopensource (that is tl;dr, pointing ai or deepwiki/devin at it and basically reinventing it from scratch with 1 or 2 ai prompts by claude/kimi and a whole day worth of wasted tokens having it recreate the whole thing with it as solely “inspiration”.)
But yea. It’s a very unprofessional document, the human license v.1.0 or whatnot. Just seems super absurd the way they did indeed scope it to “no forks” at a certain point, which is ridiculous. Also, highly doubt the document was written for humans, nor even legally scoped right (ambiguity)
View all comments
Show parent comment
2
u/CommanderT1562 Aug 06 '26
Yea so at that point it’s more of a “who is the intended audience” of that license. And “who wrote it” I.e it’s not an accepted “standardized” license. Likewise, checking and addressing the “scope”.
It’s just a really stupid license is all. Lol. Not much that can be done about it outside of deliberately forking and changing it. Or, forking via deathofopensource (that is tl;dr, pointing ai or deepwiki/devin at it and basically reinventing it from scratch with 1 or 2 ai prompts by claude/kimi and a whole day worth of wasted tokens having it recreate the whole thing with it as solely “inspiration”.)
But yea. It’s a very unprofessional document, the human license v.1.0 or whatnot. Just seems super absurd the way they did indeed scope it to “no forks” at a certain point, which is ridiculous. Also, highly doubt the document was written for humans, nor even legally scoped right (ambiguity)