- ship or maintain a modified version outside the contribution-purpose
  rules;
- maintain a divergent private or internal fork;
- port, clone, rebrand, or recreate the Covered Software;
- create an API-compatible replacement, behavioral clone, competing
  implementation, or Derivative Implementation; or
- use AI-assisted implementation mining to create, improve, test,
  document, or validate a Derivative Implementation.

Look, I use AI too (mostly to speed things up by working on multiple items in parallel), but I'm not gonna stuff "human-origin source license" on anything I use it for, nor do I think creating API-compatible replacements, competing implementations, etc, should reasonably be possible to block with a license... Also, quite literally, he's creating tools for reverse engineering, which in itself is generally in breach of the license of whatever software is being reverse engineered. Fuck off and use a FOSS license, whether it be permissive or copyleft...

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 38 points 4 days ago

"No! Nuh uh! You can't prompt Claude to do what it did for me, again! I did it first and called 'dibs' on ever doing it again!"

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago

As if copyright even applied to this.

[–] purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 6 points 4 days ago

Was it not ruled that API compatibility was not copyright infringement? (Oracle Vs Google.) I don't think the last two are even enforceable.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

- ship or maintain a modified version outside the contribution-purpose
  rules;
- maintain a divergent private or internal fork;
- port, clone, rebrand, or recreate the Covered Software;
- create an API-compatible replacement, behavioral clone, competing
  implementation, or Derivative Implementation;

At that point why bother making your codebase public?